I have a new situation: Gary researched two old human settlements. Village A was smaller, it existed about 12,000 years ago. He also studied village B, which existed about 6,000 years ago. The village was much bigger and better developed. But I can use this background: Human beings invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago. This provided a bigger, more dependable food supply. It also allowed people to settle down in villages and cities for the first time. Birth rates went up because there was more food and settled life had other advantages. Death rates also rose because of crowded living conditions and diseases that spread from domestic animals. Because the higher birth rates were matched by higher death rates, the human population continued to grow very slowly. What is an answer for this question: Which village existed before the invention of agriculture?
Ans: Village A

I have a new situation: Keith was measuring the attributes of thermoclines. He selected two locations. One is near Miami, which is in the tropic. The other is near New York, which is in higher latitude. In total, he took four samples, sample A, sample B, sample C, and sample D. From Miami thermocline he took sample A. Then from below Miami thermocline he took sample B. From New York thermocline he took sample C. Finally, from below New York thermocline he took sample D. But I can use this background: If a zone undergoes dramatic changes in temperature with depth, it contains a thermocline. The tropical thermocline is typically deeper than the thermocline at higher latitudes. Polar waters, which receive relatively little solar energy, are not stratified by temperature and generally lack a thermocline because surface water at polar latitudes are nearly as cold as water at greater depths. Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from 1 C to 3 C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 C. What is an answer for this question: Would thermocline of sample A be deeper or shallower than the thermocline of sample C?
Ans: deeper

I have a new situation: Both Nicaragua and Costa Rica had large tract of pristine forests. They had one of the largest concentration of tropical species. In the 1980s Nicaragua started clearing up some of these forests. Instead, they have now vast tract of sugarcane production in that land. One can still visit Costa Rica where they kept those pristine forests intact. But I can use this background: Besides anthropogenic productivity of the land, the biodiversity of degraded land also declines, as previously mentioned.[12] With less biodiversity, this ecosystem is less adaptable to when disasters strike it[11][8] It has a smaller available food supply, in terms of plants, for animals, who then may die out or more likely may relocate. Proof of this decline is that presently 15-20% of Tibetan Plateau species are now considered endangered; and now because of this animal and plant absence, the soil quality of these degraded lands is very poor.[1] It does not hold the necessary nutrients, such as water, nitrogen, and carbon, essential to either supporting life or inviting life back to that land.[6] As a result of such carbon and nitrogen loss in the Tibetan Plateau, $8,033/ha and $13,315/ha were respectively lost in economic terms. Soils are further weakened by dust storms whose frequency increases because of degradation.[11][4] Erosion of soil becomes a bigger problem, since no longer are there as many plants to anchor in the soil. In the northern Chinese province alone, 400 million are affected every year with an associated 54 billion yuan of annual economic loss due to grassland degradation. What is an answer for this question: which country's ecosystem would most likely adapt better if a disaster strikes, Nicaragua or Costa Rica?
Ans: Costa Rica

I have a new situation: Bay city practiced organic farming and used almost no fertilizers. Gulf city practiced conventional farming for it inhabitants, and used vast quantities of fertilizers. But I can use this background: Marine pollution is a generic term for the entry into the ocean of potentially hazardous chemicals or particles. The biggest culprits are rivers and with them many agriculture fertilizer chemicals as well as livestock and human waste. The excess of oxygen-depleting chemicals leads to hypoxia and the creation of a dead zone.Marine debris, which is also known as marine litter, describes human-created waste floating in a body of water. Oceanic debris tends to accumulate at the center of gyres and coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter. What is an answer for this question: Which city caused the entry of less agriculture fertilizer into the ocean?
Ans: Bay