Problem: I can use this 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.  Now, I have a new situation: Bob was studying about Earth's atmosphere. He found that increased depletion of Earth's ozone layer is a relatively new phenomenon. Most scientists would blame the CFC gases for the depletion of ozone layer. In the early twentieth century ozone layer was relatively stable. Bob labeled that time as time A. But in the late twentieth century situation changed with seasonal depletion of ozone layer. He labeled that time as time B.  Answer this question please: Would time B see less or more phytoplankton than time A?

A: less


Problem: I can use this background: Natural resources include energy, minerals and other materials. Natural resources may be renewable or non-renewable. Non-renewable resources cannot be replaced. When they're gone, they're gone. Renewable resources can be replaced. They can supply human activities forever. Fossil fuels are crucial for modern human society. Fossil fuels are essential for transportation, industry and agriculture. Renewable energy resources tend to be clean. They emit fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Renewable resources often have other problems. They are more costly and less efficient than fossil fuels. Still, they have many advantages. Research is going into developing renewable resources. Conservation is the best way to increase resource availability. Anyone can conserve! You and your family can. Society can. The world can. Just reduce, reuse, recycle.  Now, I have a new situation: A recent study compared the amount of pollution in the air of two towns, Kaya and Arcfield. Arcfield is mostly powered by solar panels. Kaya on the other hand uses fossil fuels to power most of the town.  Answer this question please: Given a third town, Shooze, has recently switched to using solar panels for energy, will the amount of pollution increase or decrease?

A: decrease


Problem: I can use this background: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.[1][2] A paradox involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.[3][4][5]  Now, I have a new situation: In ancient Greece King Juno asked two of his court philosophers, philosopher A and philosopher B, to come up with two interesting problems. Philosopher A devised a clever paradox and presented it before the court. He called the  paradox Problem A. But philosopher B didn't come up with a paradox. He too presented a clever problem which was not a paradox - he called it problem B.  Answer this question please: Which problem's elements would persist over time?

A: Problem A


Problem: I can use this background: Greenhouse Effect: The solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is concentrated in short wavelengths, which can easily penetrate the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. The Earth, however, is cooler than the sun and it radiates its heat in the form of energy in the far infrared range. These longer wavelengths are partially absorbed by the greenhouse gases and some of the solar heat is returned to Earth. At a certain temperature these processes are in equilibrium and the surface temperature of the Earth is stable. However, if more greenhouse gases are put in the atmosphere the amount of trapped terrestrial radiation increases, leading to an increase in global temperature.  Now, I have a new situation: Two friends liked studying about the Earth's atmosphere. Vick studied more about the troposphere, while Frank studied more about the Greenhouse Effect.  Answer this question please: Which friend studied more about carbon dioxide?

A:
Frank