[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Increases in erosion due to farming and other operations will be reflected by changes in sediment composition and increases in deposition rates elsewhere. In land areas with a depositional regime, engineered structures will tend to be buried and preserved, along with litter and debris. Litter and debris thrown from boats or carried by rivers and creeks will accumulate in the marine environment, particularly in coastal areas. Such manmade artifacts preserved in stratigraphy are known as "technofossils."Changes in biodiversity will also be reflected in the fossil record, as will species introductions. An example cited is the domestic chicken, originally the red junglefowl Gallus gallus, native to south-east Asia but has since become the world's most common bird through human breeding and consumption, with over 60 billion consumed a year and whose bones would become fossilized in landfill sites. Hence, landfills are important resources to find "technofossils". I am facing a new situation today: Mike is an an archeologist. He was pondering about how human legacy would be viewed in the future. For that, he was very interested in technofossils. He located a site with ample evidence of technofossils. He noted that site as site A. To compare site A with a site with no technofossils he located another site. He noted that site as site B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which site would reflect less erosion due to human activities, site A or site B?
****
[A]: site B

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Distance decay is a geographical term which describes the effect of distance on cultural or spatial interactions. The distance decay effect states that the interaction between two locales declines as the distance between them increases. Once the distance is outside of the two locales' activity space, their interactions begin to decrease. With the advent of faster travel, distance has less effect than it did in the past, except where places previously connected by now-abandoned railways, for example, have fallen off the beaten path. Advances in communications technology, such as telegraphs, telephones, broadcasting, and internet, have further decreased the effects of distance.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring countries with similar economies, followed different political and economical agendas. Niger developed its infrastructure and communications technology, while Nigeria didn't. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country experiences shorter commuting times?
****
[A]: Niger

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Figure B above shows an important relationship between the wavelength and frequency of a wave. The top wave clearly has a shorter wavelength than the second wave. However, if you picture yourself at a stationary point watching these waves pass by, more waves of the first kind would pass by in a given amount of time. Thus the frequency of the first waves is greater than that of the second waves. Wavelength and frequency are therefore inversely related. As the wavelength of a wave increases, its frequency decreases. The equation that relates the two is I am facing a new situation today: Bill is working in a sound studio recording sound effects for a short film that he is working on. Some of the sounds he captured have a very high frequency and others are very low frequency. When he is done he begins to edit the sound with a computer program. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: If Bill edited one sound to have a higher frequency did its wavelength become longer or shorter?
****
[A]: shorter

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: The southern province was exposed to intensive grazing for many years , and now soil quality is poor and dust storms are present. The northern province has more fertile soil, more trees. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which province experiences less soil erosion?
****
[A]:
northern