Q: Given the background: 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. and the situation: Keith is an environmental scientist. He was studying the loss of ozone layer and its effect on different species. His data showed that in the beginning or twentieth century there were hardly any loss of ozone layer. He categorized that time period as time A. Further inquiry revealed that things didn't go well at the end of twentieth century - when there were severe loss of ozone layer. He categorized that time as time B. Answer the following question: Which perion would less likely see ocean food webs disrupted, time A or time B?
A: time A

Q: Given the background: Increased solar ultraviolet radiation resulting from the Antarctic ozone hole has reduced marine primary productivity (phytoplankton) by as much as 15% and has started damaging the DNA of some fish. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, especially the landing of an estimated five to six times more Patagonian toothfish than the regulated fishery, likely affects the sustainability of the stock. Long-line fishing for toothfish causes a high incidence of seabird mortality. and the situation: Red fishery and Brown fishery were both fishing for Patagonian toothfish. Red fishery was fishing illegally, while Brown fishery was regulated and lawful. Answer the following question: Which fishery had a less negative impact on the sustainability of the fish stock?
A: Brown

Q: Given the background: Fish mortality is a parameter used in fisheries population dynamics to account for the loss of fish in a fish stock through death. The mortality can be divided into two types: Natural mortality: the removal of fish from the stock due to causes not associated with fishing. Such causes can include disease, competition, cannibalism, old age, predation, pollution or any other natural factor that causes the death of fish. In fisheries models natural mortality is denoted by (M).[1] Fishing mortality: the removal of fish from the stock due to fishing activities using any fishing gear.[1] It is denoted by (F) in fisheries models. and the situation: Bob works as a scientist for a large fishing company in Norway. Norway's government has strict regulations on fishing to protect its fish stock. Part of Bob's job is to provide the government with fish mortality data. Today, he has two samples of fish to investigate, sample A and sample B. Bob concluded sample A had natural mortality, but sample B had fishing mortality. Answer the following question: For which sample predation would not be a cause of death, sample A or sample B?
A: sample B

Q: Given the background: Astronomy is very sensitive to light pollution. The night sky viewed from a city bears no resemblance to what can be seen from dark skies.[78] Skyglow (the scattering of light in the atmosphere at night) reduces the contrast between stars and galaxies and the sky itself, making it much harder to see fainter objects. This is one factor that has caused newer telescopes to be built in increasingly remote areas. and the situation: Diana is studying astronomy and in her spare time likes to stargaze. She has never been outside of her large city however. One weekend she got to go on a camping trip with her parents. When they arrived at the campsite, which is very far from the lights of the city she noticed the number of stars she could see in the sky greatly increased. Answer the following question: Will you see more or less stars at a campsite?
A:
more