Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Circles of latitude are often called parallels because they are parallel to each other; that is, any two circles are always the same distance apart. A location's position along a circle of latitude is given by its longitude. Circles of latitude are unlike circles of longitude, which are all great circles with the centre of Earth in the middle, as the circles of latitude get smaller as the distance from the Equator increases. Their length can be calculated by a common sine or cosine function. The 60th parallel north or south is half as long as the Equator (disregarding Earth's minor flattening by 0.3%). A circle of latitude is perpendicular to all meridians. I am facing a new situation today: The city of Riga is situated at 56 degrees N, and its sister city Kobe, Japan is situated at 34 degrees N, on a different circle of latitude. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city is situated farther from the North Pole?
++++++++
Answer: Kobe

Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Alpine climate is the average weather (climate) for the alpine tundra. The climate becomes colder at high elevationsthis characteristic is described by the lapse rate of air: air tends to get colder as it rises, since it expands. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10 C per km (5.5 F per 1000 ft) of elevation or altitude. Therefore, moving up 100 metres (330 ft) on a mountain is roughly equivalent to moving 80 kilometers (45 miles or 0.75 of latitude) towards the pole. This relationship is only approximate, however, since local factors such as proximity to oceans can drastically modify the climate. I am facing a new situation today: Two regions of the same country had very different climates because of the different landscapes. East region had an alpine landscape, was situated in the mountains. North region was flat and located at sea level. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which region didn't have an alpine tundra?
++++++++
Answer: North

Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Earth is a restless planet. Heat in the Earth's interior causes giant plates of crust to move around on the surface. The crashing and smashing of these plates leads to nearly all of the geological activity we see. Plate collisions bring us volcanoes and earthquakes, mountain ranges, and many resources. Seafloor forms as plates move apart. Some of Earth's most beautiful landscapes come from plate tectonics. The Grand Tetons in Wyoming rose up as the Farallon Plate sunk beneath the North American Plate during the Laramide orogeny. I am facing a new situation today: John was studying the plate tectonics of earth. He specifically selected two locations, location A and location B. He noticed that location A had lot of plate tectonics activities, but location B didn't have much of that. He wondered how that would make difference in those locations' characteristics. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would location B have less or more volcanoes than location A?
++++++++
Answer:
less