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: There are two neighboring towns that were founded around the same time as one another. Prolot is situated high atop a tall hill which makes the walk up to the city quite daunting to travelers. However, the view when you reach the top is truly breathtaking. The town of Lire is located at the base of the hill that Prolot is on. Many tourists stop at the city of Lire to spend a night resting before they begin their journey up to Prolot the following day. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city has a warmer climate?
----
Answer: Lire
Q: I read this background article the other day: A wood-decay fungus is any species of fungus that digests moist wood, causing it to rot. Some species of wood-decay fungi attack dead wood, such as brown rot, and some, such as Armillaria (honey fungus), are parasitic and colonize living trees. Excessive moisture above the fibre saturation point in wood is required for fungal colonization and proliferation.[1] Fungi that not only grow on wood but permeate its fibrous structure and actually cause decay, are called lignicolous fungi. In nature, this process causes the breakdown of complex molecules and leads to the return of nutrients to the soil.[2] Various lignicolous fungi consume wood in various ways; for example, some attack the carbohydrates in wood and some others decay lignin. The rate of decay of wooden materials in various climates can be estimated by empirical models.[3] I am facing a new situation today: Bob is a botanist. His interest is in different kinds of fungi. He went to Brazil last month to study fungi in the Amazon rain forest. First day he searched for fungi in a location with excessive moisture. Second day he searched for fungi in a location with no moisture. In all his search he found two specimens of fungi. Specimen A is a brown rot fungus, and specimen B is a honey fungus. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would specimen A fungus live on dead woods or not live on dead woods?
A: live on dead woods
Question: I read this background article the other day: The mechanism describing the formation of the ozone layer was described by British mathematician Sydney Chapman in 1930. Molecular oxygen absorbs high energy sunlight in the UV-C region, at wavelengths shorter than about 240 nm. Radicals produced from the homolytically split oxygen molecules combine with molecular oxygen to form ozone. Ozone in turn is photolysed much more rapidly than molecular oxygen as it has a stronger absorption that occurs at longer wavelengths, where the solar emission is more intense. Ozone (O3) photolysis produces O and O2. The oxygen atom product combines with atmospheric molecular oxygen to reform O3, releasing heat. The rapid photolysis and reformation of ozone heats the stratosphere resulting in a temperature inversion. This increase of temperature with altitude is characteristic of the stratosphere; its resistance to vertical mixing means that it is stratified. Within the stratosphere temperatures increase with altitude (see temperature inversion); the top of the stratosphere has a temperature of about 270 K (3C or 26.6F). This vertical stratification, with warmer layers above and cooler layers below, makes the stratosphere dynamically stable: there is no regular convection and associated turbulence in this part of the atmosphere. However, exceptionally energetic convection processes, such as volcanic eruption columns and overshooting tops in severe supercell thunderstorms, may carry convection into the stratosphere on a very local and temporary basis. Overall the attenuation of solar UV at wavelengths that damage DNA by the ozone layer allows life to exist on the surface of the planet outside of the ocean. All air entering the stratosphere must pass through the tropopause, the temperature minimum that divides the troposphere and stratosphere. The rising air is literally freeze dried; the stratosphere is a very dry place. The top of the stratosphere is called the stratopause, above which the temperature decreases with height. I am facing a new situation today: Barbara and Jane are two students. They both like meteorology. Barbara studies the formation of the ozone layer, while Jane studies about the stratosphere. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which student learned more about radicals combining with molecular oxygen to form ozone?
Answer: Barbara
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Many reactions take place in solution or in the gas phase, where the reactants are evenly dispersed throughout a homogeneous mixture. However, for reactions in which one of the reactants is a pure solid or liquid (meaning that this reactant is not already mixed together with any other reactants), reactivity only occurs at the surface, where particles of the solid or liquid reactant come into contact with particles of the other reactants. All of the molecules or ions in the interior of the pure substance will not be colliding with the other necessary reactants, so they are not really contributing to the overall rate of the reaction. However, increasing the surface area will increase the frequency of potentially reactive collisions, because more reactant particles will be in contact with the other necessary reactants. I am facing a new situation today: Mike was preparing for his chemistry exam. To see the chemistry concepts in practice he conducted two tests, test A and test B. In test A he used two liquid reactants evenly dispersed, but in test B he used one liquid reactant and one solid reactant. He was surprised to see that two tests had very different results. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would test B have higher or lower rate of reaction than test A?
****
[A]: lower
I read this background article the other day: The Table above includes the ideal mechanical advantage of each class of lever. The mechanical advantage is the factor by which a machine changes the input force. The ideal mechanical advantage is the increase or decrease in force that would occur if there were no friction to overcome in the use of the machine. Because all machines must overcome some friction, the ideal mechanical advantage is always somewhat greater than the actual mechanical advantage of the machine as it is used in the real world. I am facing a new situation today: John designed a hypothetical lever that would have ideal mechanical advantage. He labeled the lever as lever A. He then wanted to compare this lever with a real world lever, which he labeled as lever B. He intended to use these levers to increase force. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would lever B have more friction or less friction than lever A?
----
Answer:
more friction