Q: 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: In location A would seafloor more likely or less likely form than in location B?
A: more likely

Q: I read this background article the other day: Rain dissolves fertilizer in the soil. Runoff carries it away. The fertilizer ends up in bodies of water, from ponds to oceans. Nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water. Since there is a lot of nitrogen, it causes algae to grow out of control. Pictured below is a pond covered with algae ( Figure below ). Algae use up carbon dioxide in the water. After the algae die, decomposers break down the dead tissue. The decomposers use up all the oxygen in the water. This creates a dead zone. A dead zone is an area in a body of water where nothing grows because there is too little oxygen. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ( Figure below ). The U.S. states outlined on the map have rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico. The rivers drain vast agricultural lands. The water carries fertilizer from these areas into the Gulf.  I am facing a new situation today: Two farmer's associations used different agricultural methods when growing crops. Bold farm used lots of fertilizers over the years, while Shallow farm used organic methods combined with methods from permaculture.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farm put more nitrogen into bodies of water?
A: Bold

Q: 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: Two cities located at the sea shore between sand dunes, took 2 different approaches to their economic stability and sources of income for their inhabitants. Dune city was mainly focused on raising cattle, fishing and tourism, while Gulf city started sand mining operations because of the good prices they received per cubic yard of sand.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city contributed less to the disturbance of underwater and coastal sand ?
A: Dune

Q: I read this background article the other day: In addition to insects, weeds have also been a menace to farmers - just ask anyone with a garden how much they hate weeds. They can quickly compete for water and nutrients needed by other plants. Sure, farmers can use herbicides to kill weeds, but do these chemicals also harm the crops? Can biotechnology help with this issue? Some crops have also been genetically engineered to acquire tolerance to the herbicides - allowing the crops to grow, but killing the weeds. But the lack of cost effective herbicides with a broad range of activity - that do not harm crops - is a problem in weed management. Multiple applications of numerous herbicides are routinely needed to control the wide range of weeds that are harmful to crops. And at times these herbicides are being used as a preventive measure – that is, spraying to prevent weeds from developing rather than spraying after weeds form. So these chemicals are being added to crops. This practice is followed by mechanical and/or hand weeding to control weeds that are not controlled by the chemicals. Crops that are tolerant of herbicides would obviously be a tremendous benefit to farmers ( Figure above ). The introduction of herbicide tolerant crops has the potential to reduce the number of chemicals needed during a growing season, thereby increasing crop yield due to improved weed management and decreased harm to the crops.  I am facing a new situation today: Because of the weed and insect menace villagers from North village decided to use herbicide tolerant crops. South village decided to postpone a decision and kept using regular seeds.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which village reduced the number of chemicals needed during a growing season?
A: