How does climate change affect Spain?

Reduction in local biodiversity.

Increase in the amount of precipitation.

Increase in agricultural production.

What is global warming specifically?

Increase in the temperature of the earth's land and ocean surface.

Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Decrease in global temperature.

Change in global rainfall patterns.

Which measure is NOT mentioned as a solution to climate change?

Investment in nuclear technology.

Restrictions for large greenhouse gas emitters.

Promotion of sustainable measures.

Creation and monitoring of international policies.

What consequence of climate change is observed globally?

Increase in the frequency of hurricanes and heat waves.

Decrease in global temperatures.

Reduction in the intensity of extreme weather events.

What is the impact of the temperature increase on the mussels in the Ebro Delta?

Reduction in size until they become unmarketable.

Accelerated growth of the mussels.

Migration of the mussels to colder waters.

Increase in the commercialization of mussels.

Which of the following actions is an individual responsibility to combat climate change?

Increase the consumption of animal protein.

Use motor vehicles more frequently.

Purchase local and seasonal products.

What is the aim of international policies like the Paris Agreement?

To limit the increase in global temperature.

To promote the use of fossil fuels.

To reduce investment in renewable energy.

To increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

What is climate change?

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

اسئلة استاذ عماد لغاية سؤال 5 Question 1: "What is the purpose of your report, and who is your target audience?" Answer: "The purpose of my report is to analyze the effects of climate change on coastal ecosystems. My target audience includes students and teachers who want to understand environmental challenges and solutions." Question 2: "Which part of your report did you find most challenging to write?" Answer: "The methodology section was the most challenging because I had to collect data from multiple sources and ensure it was accurate and relevant." Question 3: "How did you organize your report? Explain the structure briefly." Answer: "I divided my report into four sections: introduction, methodology, findings, and conclusion. This helped me present the information logically." Question 4: "What visual aids did you use, and why?" Answer: "I included charts and maps to visually represent data trends and geographical impacts. Visual aids make complex information easier to understand." Question 5: "What did you learn from this report-writing process?" Answer: "I learned how to conduct thorough research, critically evaluate sources, and present information clearly. It improved my time-management skills too."

Question 1 Category: Current Events Question: What was the primary demand of the Kenyan Gen Z protesters featured in the BBC documentary Unmasked: The Truth Behind the Gen Z Protests? Options: A) Free education B) Repeal of the Finance Bill 2024 C) Climate change action D) New elections Correct Answer: B) Repeal of the Finance Bill 2024 Explanation: The BBC documentary highlights that Kenyan youth protested to demand the repeal of the Finance Bill 2024, which proposed tax hikes raising $2.7 billion. Question 2 Category: Science Question: Which gas, discovered on the sun before Earth, is the second most abundant element in the universe? Options: A) Hydrogen B) Oxygen C) Helium D) Nitrogen Correct Answer: C) Helium Explanation: Helium was first detected in the sun’s spectrum in 1868 and is the second most abundant element after hydrogen in the universe. Question 3 Category: Current Events Question: Which Kenyan city was the epicenter of the Gen Z protests covered in the BBC documentary Unmasked: The Truth Behind the Gen Z Protests? Options: A) Mombasa B) Nairobi C) Kisumu D) Eldoret Correct Answer: B) Nairobi Explanation: Nairobi, Kenya’s capital, was the main hub for the #OccupyParliament protests, with significant events like the Parliament breach occurring there, as shown in the documentary. Question 4 Category: History Question: Which empire, known for its vast trade networks, was centered in modern-day Turkey and lasted until the early 20th century? Options: A) Roman Empire B) Ottoman Empire C) Mongol Empire D) Byzantine Empire Correct Answer: B) Ottoman Empire Explanation: The Ottoman Empire, spanning over 600 years until 1922, was a major trade and cultural power centered in modern-day Turkey. Question 5 Category: Current Events Question: According to the BBC documentary, what technology helped document evidence of police brutality during the Kenyan Gen Z protests? Options: A) Drones B) Smartphone videos C) Facial recognition software D) Satellite tracking Correct Answer: B) Smartphone videos Explanation: The documentary used smartphone videos from protesters and bystanders, analyzed via open-source data, to document police brutality during the 2024 protests. Question 6 Category: Geography Question: What is the smallest country in the world by land area? Options: A) Monaco B) Vatican City C) San Marino D) Liechtenstein Correct Answer: B) Vatican City Explanation: Vatican City, with an area of about 44 hectares, is the smallest sovereign state in the world by land area. Question 7 Category: Current Events Question: What hashtag became synonymous with the Kenyan Gen Z protests, as featured in the BBC documentary Unmasked: The Truth Behind the Gen Z Protests? Options: A) #KenyaRising B) #OccupyParliament C) #TaxRevolt D) #GenZFight Correct Answer: B) #OccupyParliament Explanation: The #OccupyParliament hashtag was widely used by protesters to rally against the Finance Bill 2024, as documented by the BBC. Question 8 Category: Entertainment Question: Which actor starred as the lead in the 2023 film Barbie and also played a role in La La Land? Options: A) Emma Stone B) Margot Robbie C) Zendaya D) Saoirse Ronan Correct Answer: B) Margot Robbie Explanation: Margot Robbie starred as Barbie in the 2023 film and played a supporting role in La La Land (2016). Question 9 Category: Sports Question: Which sport is played at the Wimbledon Championships? Options: A) Cricket B) Rugby C) Tennis D) Golf Correct Answer: C) Tennis Explanation: Wimbledon, held annually in London, is the oldest and one of the most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world. Question 10 Category: Technology Question: In web development, what does the acronym “CSS” stand for? Options: A) Computer Style System B) Cascading Style Sheets C) Creative Script Syntax D) Centralized Style Standard Correct Answer: B) Cascading Style Sheets Explanation: CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) is used to style and format the appearance of web pages written in HTML.

2.2 Study Guide [ 2.2 Sequence Assessment 1/21 and 1/22] Ecosystems and Ecological Relationships Invasive Species ● An invasive species is a plant, animal, or organism that is not native to a specific area and causes harm to the environment or human health. Why are they harmful? Invasive species often outcompete native species for food, water, and space. They can spread quickly because they lack natural predators in the new environment. What is their impact on the ecosystem? Invasive species can reduce biodiversity by pushing native species to extinction or by changing the habitat in which native species live. Biodiversity and Its Importance to Ecosystems Biodiversity refers to the variety of life in a specific area, including different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, and the ecosystems they form. ● Stability: Biodiversity makes ecosystems more resilient to changes such as climate change, diseases, and natural disasters. ● Food chains and webs: A greater variety of species means more sources of food for different animals, helping maintain a balanced food web. For example, a forest with many species of plants and animals can recover from a drought more easily than a forest with fewer species. Predator-Prey Relationships In a predator-prey relationship, one organism (the predator) hunts and eats another organism (the prey). The predator benefits by getting food, while the prey loses its life.The population sizes of predators and prey are often linked. If there are more prey, the predator population may grow, but if too many predators eat the prey, the predator population will decrease. This relationship can be shown in the graph below. ● For example: Lions hunt zebras for food. When there are many zebras, lions have more food and their population can grow. However, if too many lions eat the zebras, the zebra population can decrease. Predator-prey relationships help keep animal populations balanced, preventing one species from becoming too numerous and harming the environment. Ecological Relationships There are several types of relationships between organisms in an ecosystem. These include commensalism, parasitism, and mutualism. Commensalism In commensalism, one organism benefits from the relationship while the other is neither helped nor harmed. An example would be Barnacles and Whales. Barnacles attach to the skin of whales. The barnacles get access to nutrient-rich water while the whale swims, but the whale is not affected by their presence. Parasitism In parasitism, one organism (the parasite) benefits at the expense of the other organism (the host), which is harmed. For example, fleas live on dogs and feed on their blood. The fleas benefit, but the dog may suffer from itching, infections, or even anemia. Another example are tapeworms and humans. Tapeworms live in the intestines of humans and absorb nutrients, leaving the human host malnourished. Mutualism In mutualism, both organisms benefit from the relationship. An example would be bees and flowers: Bees collect nectar from flowers to make honey, while helping the flowers by transferring pollen, which helps them reproduce.

Title (Slide 0): "Digging Deeper: The Truth About Tillage" Subtitle: How turning the soil affects plants, microbes, and the planet Slide 1: What Is Tillage? Tilling the soil means digging, turning, and loosening it using tools or machines. It's a common farming practice to prepare the land before planting. Slide 2: Why Do Farmers Till? Tillage is usually done before planting to: • Soften and aerate the soil • Mix in nutrients • Remove weeds • Bury crop residues for decomposition and fertility Slide 3: Tools Used for Tillage Farmers use tools like: • Ploughs: Cut deep into the soil • Harrows: Break up clumps and smooth the surface Slide 4: Ploughs vs. Harrows • Ploughs: Used first, go deep, lift and flip soil • Harrows: Used after ploughs, work on the surface to break clumps and level the soil Slide 5: Types of Tillage Systems From most to least soil disturbance: • Conventional Tillage: Deep ploughing • Minimum Tillage: Light disturbance • Conservation Tillage: Only disturb seed zone, keep residues on top • Zero Tillage (No-Till): Plant directly into undisturbed soil Slide 6: Problem 1 – Soil Erosion Tillage removes protective cover, exposing soil to wind and rain. Result: topsoil—the most fertile layer—is easily washed or blown away. Slide 7: Problem 2 – Disruption of Soil Life Soil is a living ecosystem! • Worms, fungi, and bacteria help aerate soil and release nutrients • Tillage destroys their habitat, reducing fertility and soil health Slide 8: Problem 3 – Loss of Soil Structure Healthy soil has pores for air, water, and roots. Tillage breaks the sponge-like structure, and soil compacts over time—like flattening it into a pancake. Hard soil = poor plant growth. Slide 9: Problem 4 – Decreased Organic Matter Microbes "eat" organic matter through aerobic respiration (using O₂ and releasing CO₂). Tillage adds oxygen, microbes speed up, and burn through the soil’s “pantry” of organic matter—leaving it empty and poor. Slide 10: Problem 5 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Faster decomposition = more CO₂ released. Tillage boosts microbial activity, which increases carbon dioxide emissions—contributing to climate change. ✅ Conclusion (Slide 11): 🌱 Tillage: A Double-Edged Tool Tillage can help prepare the soil and control weeds—but it comes at a cost. Over time, repeated tilling can strip away organic matter, destroy soil life, and release greenhouse gases. It's like spending all your savings for quick results—and being left with nothing for the future. The smarter path? Use reduced or no-till methods that protect soil health, keep carbon in the ground, and support long-term farming success.

Create a review game for 9th grade biology students using the following topics Levels of Organization in an ecosystem- population, community, ecosystem, biome, biosphere Abiotic and Biotic Factors Differences between Food chains and food webs Trophic Levels Producers vs Consumers, Autotrophs vs. Heterotrophs Effects of Greenhouse gases and their effects on global systems. Biome examples Photosynthesis vs cellular respiration Types of Consumers Ecological Pyramids 10% rule Cycles of Matter/ Nutrient Cycles- Water Cycle, Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle, Phosphorus Cycle (note on the diagrams… the bigger the arrow, the larger amount of matter that moves through the cycle from that point to the next. Macromolecules- Carbohydrates, Lipids, Proteins, Nucleic Acids Nitrogen fixation Denitrification Eutrophication The usable form on nitrogen for plants is nitrate Population density and distribution-random, dispersed and clumped Birth rate and death rate Survivorship curves- Type I, II, and III Density dependent factors Density independent factors Exponential growth- J curve = unlimited resources, no limiting factors Logistical Growth-S curve= limiting factors, carrying capacity Symbiotic Relationships- Competition, predation, Herbivory, mutualism, parasitism, commensalism What is an invasive species? Why might countries limit certain species to coming into a new country or area? What is mycorrhizal? Succession- Primary vs Secondary Pioneer Species Climax community Biodiversity Climate change

There are two numbers you need to know about climate change. The first is 51 billion. The other is zero. Fifty-one billion is how many tons of greenhouse gases the world typically adds to the atmosphere every year. This is where we are today. Zero is what we need to aim for. To stop the warming and avoid the worst effects of climate change, humans need to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This sounds difficult, because it will be. Every country will need to change its ways. Virtually every activity in modern life – growing things, making things, getting around from place to place – involves releasing greenhouse gases, and as time goes on, more people will be living this modern lifestyle. That’s good, because it means their lives are getting better. Yet if nothing else changes, the world will keep producing greenhouse gases, climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will be catastrophic. But “if nothing else changes” is a big If. I believe that things can change. We already have some of the tools we need, and as for those we don’t yet have, we can not only invent, but also deploy them, and, if we act fast enough, avoid a climate catastrophe. Two decades ago, I would never have predicted that one day I would be talking in public about climate change. My background is in software, not climate science. Things changed for me when I met with two former Microsoft colleagues who were starting non-profits focused on energy and climate. They brought along two climate experts who were well versed in the issues, and the four of them showed me the data connecting greenhouse gas emissions to climate change. I kept learning everything I could about climate and energy, agriculture, oceans, sea levels, glaciers, power lines, and more. One thing that became clear to me was that our current sources of renewable energy – wind and solar, mostly – could make a big dent in the problem, but we weren’t doing enough to deploy them. It also became clear why, on their own, they aren’t enough to get us all the way to zero. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Within a few years, I had become convinced of three things: 1. To avoid a climate disaster, we have to get to zero. 2. We need to deploy the tools we already have, like solar and wind, faster and smarter. 3. We need to create breakthrough technologies that can take us the rest of the way.

What is the page mainly about? (Answer: C — Homes meet a basic need) A) House colors B) Old buildings C) Homes meet a basic need ✓ D) Travel What basic need do homes give? (Answer: B — Shelter) A) Food B) Shelter ✓ C) Clothes D) Money What does “basic need” mean here? (Answer: C — Something people must have to live) A) Something nice to have B) A school rule C) Something people must have to live ✓ D) A weekend plan Homes keep people ______ and ______. What are the two words from the page? (Answer: B — dry / safe) A) rich / tall B) dry / safe ✓ C) loud / fast D) clean / funny What else are homes for, according to the text? (Answer: B — Eating, sleeping, and being with family and friends) A) Shopping B) Eating, sleeping, and being with family and friends ✓ C) Driving D) Fighting What does the heading “Meeting our needs” tell you? (Answer: B — explains how homes fit the local climate) A) A joke is coming B) This part explains how homes fit the local climate ✓ C) It is a story D) It lists prices What does “climate” mean on this page? (Answer: C — the usual weather of a place) A) Yesterday’s forecast B) A big storm C) The usual weather of a place ✓ D) Room temperature Which roof is best for cold, snowy places? (Answer: D — Slanted) A) Flat B) Dome C) Glass D) Slanted ✓ Why is a slanted roof helpful in snowy places? (Answer: B — snow slides off more easily) A) It is cheaper B) Snow slides off more easily ✓ C) Birds like it D) It is quieter Why do many houses in hot places have many windows? (Answer: B — to let air move through and keep people cool) A) To block all light B) To let air move through and keep people cool ✓ C) To make walls heavy D) To reduce street noise Which detail best supports “climate changes home design”? (Answer: C — Hot → many windows; Snowy → slanted roofs) A) People like blue walls B) Kitchens are big C) Hot → many windows; Snowy → slanted roofs ✓ D) Cities are crowded What does the caption about a traditional Japanese house show? (Answer: C — People sit on mats on the floor to eat) A) People eat outdoors B) Families don’t eat together C) People sit on mats on the floor to eat ✓ D) People stand to eat Which sentence is LEAST connected to the main idea of the page? (Answer: D — Blue walls are relaxing) A) Homes protect people from weather B) Roofs can change with climate C) Windows help rooms stay cool D) Blue walls are relaxing ✓ Which text structure organizes the right paragraph? (Answer: C — Cause–effect) A) Timeline B) Problem–solution C) Cause–effect ✓ D) Description only What is the author’s purpose? (Answer: B — to explain how homes meet a human need) A) To sell houses B) To explain how homes meet a human need ✓ C) To tell a funny story D) To give building laws What can you guess about a flat roof in a snowy place? (Answer: B — snow can pile up and be unsafe) A) Best choice B) Snow can pile up and be unsafe ✓ C) Always cheaper D) Warmer in summer Which page feature helps you find ideas quickly? (Answer: C — Headings and photo captions) A) Rhyme B) Dialogue C) Headings and photo captions ✓ D) Footnotes Which sentence is the best summary of the page? (Answer: C — Homes give shelter; designs change with climate) A) Houses are beautiful in winter B) People prefer bright colors C) Homes give shelter; designs change with climate (slanted roofs, many windows) ✓ D) Windows are the most important part True/False or Short Answer (5) True/False: All homes have the same purpose, even if they look different. (Answer: True) True/False: In hot places, houses usually have fewer windows to keep heat in. (Answer: False — hot places → many windows for airflow/cooling) Short Answer (1–3 words): Homes provide shelter to keep people _____ and _____. (Answer: dry; safe) Short Answer (one example): Write one climate → design pair from the page. (Answer: cold/snowy → slanted roof OR hot → many windows) True/False: The photo shows people in Japan eating on mats on the floor. (Answer: True)

Related quizzes

Related quizzes