Question: I read this background article the other day: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. I am facing a new situation today: Both Alabama and Florida boast great wetlands. The State of Alabama has experienced extensive drainage system due to expansion of farmlands. Their neighboring state Florida had similar system. But recently Florida had dismantled many of their drainage systems, mostly because of pressure from different environmental groups. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which state would not see habital loss of species, Alabama or Florida?
Answer: Florida

Question: I read this background article the other day: Extending the period of time over which a force acts in order to lessen the force is a common practice in design. Padding in shoes and seats allows the time to increase. The front of automobiles are designed to crumple in an accident; this increases the time the car takes to stop. Similarly, barrels of water or sand in front of abutments on the highway and airbags serve to slow down the stoppage time. These changes all serve to decrease the amount of force it takes to stop the momentum in a car crash, which consequently saves lives. I am facing a new situation today: Keith designs car seats. He noticed that some other car seats didn't have any padding. He marked it as case A. On the other hand, most of the seats he designed had padding. He marked it as case B. Keith needed to know pros and cons of both designs. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would case B take less or more time for the force to act than case A?
Answer: more

Question: I read this background article the other day: Sand mining is a direct cause of erosion, and impacts the local wildlife.[2] Various animals depend on sandy beaches for nesting clutches, and mining has led to the near extinction of gharials (a species of crocodile) in India. Disturbance of underwater and coastal sand causes turbidity in the water, which is harmful for organisms like coral that need sunlight. It can also destroy fisheries, financially harming their operators. Removal of physical coastal barriers, such as dunes, sometimes leads to flooding of beachside communities, and the destruction of picturesque beaches causes tourism to dissipate. Sand mining is regulated by law in many places, but is often done illegally.[3] Globally, it is a $70 billion industry, with sand selling at up to $90 per cubic yard.[4] I am facing a new situation today: Nigeria invested in sand mining and started mining coastal barriers. Congo continued preserving their picturesque beaches. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country caused more turbidity in the coastal water?
Answer:
Nigeria