Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Plucking, also referred to as quarrying, is a glacial phenomenon that is responsible for the erosion and transportation of individual pieces of bedrock, especially large "joint blocks". This occurs in a type of glacier called a "valley glacier". As a glacier moves down a valley, friction causes the basal ice of the glacier to melt and infiltrate joints (cracks) in the bedrock. The freezing and thawing action of the ice enlarges, widens, or causes further cracks in the bedrock as it changes volume across the ice/water phase transition (a form of hydraulic wedging), gradually loosening the rock between the joints. This produces large pieces of rock called joint blocks. Eventually these joint blocks come loose and become trapped in the glacier. I am facing a new situation today: Rob likes to visit high mountainous locations. Last year he visited the the Alps mountains in Austria. There he saw an unique type of glacier called valley glacier. This year he went further east to visit the Ural mountains in Russia. There he didn't see any valley glacier. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which mountain would not see erosion of bedrocks?
++++++++
Answer: Ural

Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Unfortunately, the layer of good ozone is being destroyed by air pollution. The chief culprits are chlorine and bromine gases. They are released in aerosol sprays, coolants, and other products. Loss of ozone has created an ozone hole over Antarctica. Ozone depletion results in higher levels of UV radiation reaching Earth. In humans, this increases skin cancers and eye cataracts. It also disturbs the nitrogen cycle, kills plankton, and disrupts ocean food webs. The total loss of the ozone layer would be devastating to most life. Its rate of loss has slowed with restrictions on pollutants, but it is still at risk. I am facing a new situation today: Two researchers studied air quality over the North Pole, and over Antarctica. Dan was more fond of the south pole, so he studied Antarctica, while Colt liked reading about the North Pole. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which researcher learned less about chlorine gases?
++++++++
Answer: Colt

Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Using longitudinal data from over 100 countries, Diener and his colleagues showed that rich countries are in general happier than poor countries (Diener, Tay, & Oishi, 2013).[17] Also, life satisfaction for most countries goes up as they become wealthier over time. Diener identified three factors that influence the relationship between income and SWB. Namely, rising income most likely results in higher SWB when it leads to greater optimism, financial satisfaction and household material prosperity among citizens. Furthermore, Diener and his colleagues investigated the relationship between income and different elements of SWB. They illustrated that income has stronger influence on people's evaluation of their lives than the positive or negative emotions they experience over time (Diener, Kahneman, Tov, & Arora, 2010).[18] The study points to the necessity to evaluate different elements of SWB separately instead of treating happiness as a single entity. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring countries implemented different sets of economic reforms. The reforms took over a decade to implement, but the effects were not similar at all. Redvania was more prosperous and it became much richer, while Blueland stagflated and the inhabitants were not pleased with the outcome. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country experienced financial dissatisfaction after 10 years?
++++++++
Answer:
Blueland