I read this background article the other day: Of the 94 naturally occurring elements, those with atomic numbers 1 through 82 each have at least one stable isotope (except for technetium, element 43 and promethium, element 61, which have no stable isotopes). Isotopes considered stable are those for which no radioactive decay has yet been observed. Elements with atomic numbers 83 through 94 are unstable to the point that radioactive decay of all isotopes can be detected. Some of these elements, notably bismuth (atomic number 83), thorium (atomic number 90), and uranium (atomic number 92), have one or more isotopes with half-lives long enough to survive as remnants of the explosive stellar nucleosynthesis that produced the heavy metals before the formation of our Solar System. At over 1.9×1019 years, over a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe, bismuth-209 (atomic number 83) has the longest known alpha decay half-life of any naturally occurring element, and is almost always considered on par with the 80 stable elements. The very heaviest elements (those beyond plutonium, element 94) undergo radioactive decay with half-lives so short that they are not found in nature and must be synthesized.  I am facing a new situation today: David was studying for his chemistry exam. To understand the elements of the periodic table better he categorized them into three groups, cat A, cat B, and cat C. In cat A he placed all the elements with atomic numbers lower than 83. In cat B he put the elements with atomic numbers from 83 to 94. Finally, in cat C he placed the elements with atomic numbers over 94. He found it easier to see their differences after he categorized them.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would cat B more likely or less likely show radioactive decay than cat A?
The answer to this question is:
more likely