answer:It's impossible to say. The paragraph provided describes the architectural features of the Sabancı Central Mosque, but it does not provide any information about attendance at the mosque. Attendance can be influenced by many factors, including the religious practices and beliefs of the local population, the availability of other mosques, community events, and changes in the population. Without this information, it is not possible to make a conclusion about attendance trends at the Sabancı Central Mosque.,It's impossible to say. From the provided information, we cannot determine the attendance trends at the Sabancı Central Mosque. The paragraph gives details about the mosque itself, its appearance, and some comparisons to other mosques in Turkey, but it doesn't offer statistics or information on the number of people visiting the mosque or the patterns of attendance over time. To make an informed conclusion about the decrease in attendance at the Sabancı Central Mosque, one would need to analyze data or studies related to visitation numbers and trends at the mosque.,It's impossible to say.

answer:(i) no. The correct answer is "no," as the passage states that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, but it does not give any information about the rig's location before the accident. The passage does not mention "At the South Atlantic," which is unrelated to the information provided in the text., The correct answer is no. The passage does not provide information about the location of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig before the accident. It only mentions that the explosion occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The phrase "At the South Atlantic" is not mentioned in the passage, and even if it were, it would likely refer to a broad geographical region rather than a specific location.,(i) no. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig was in the Gulf of Mexico before the accident, not the South Atlantic. The passage states, "Transocean Ltd., owner of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded..." This clearly indicates that the rig was in the Gulf of Mexico, not the South Atlantic.

answer:Step 1: Understand the information given. The contractor switched from costlier wall supports to cheaper ones to save money. After the switch, several roofs collapsed. Step 2: Analyze the possible reasons for the roof collapse. It's logical to assume that the roof collapses occurred due to a decrease in the quality or thickness of the wall supports used. Step 3: Determine which wall supports were thinner. As the roof collapses happened after switching to the cheaper wall supports, it's reasonable to conclude that the cheaper wall supports were of lesser quality or thinner than the costlier ones. Answer: (B) The cheaper wall supports were thinner.,The cheaper wall supports were thinner. Step 1: Identify the issue in the question The question states that the contractor switched from more expensive wall supports to cheaper ones, and as a result, roofs collapsed. Step 2: Determine which of the options caused the issue Option A (expensive wall supports were thinner) does not align with the situational context of the question, as using the more expensive, presumably more durable, supports would not have caused the roofs to collapse. Step 3: Evaluate the other option Option B (cheaper wall supports were thinner) aligns with the context, as the contractor switched to cheaper, less durable supports, which then led to the roofs collapsing. Therefore, based on the information provided in the question and the steps above, the cheaper wall supports were thinner., Based on the information provided, the pricier wall supports were not the ones that were thinner. If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense for the contractor to switch to the cheaper supports, as they would presumably be less durable or capable of performing their function adequately. Therefore, we can deduce that: (B) The cheaper wall supports were thinner This conclusion is based on the assumption that the contractor's decision to switch to cheaper supports was influenced by their physical attributes, such as being thinner and potentially weaker, leading to the roof collapses.

answer:The critic was thinking negatively of the movie. The phrase "ache with sadness" suggests that the movie evoked feelings of sadness and emotional pain, which indicates a negative evaluation. The comparison to Chekhov being funny is likely ironic, as Chekhov is known for his melancholic and poignant humor. Here's a breakdown of why the other answer is wrong: * Positive: The term "ache with sadness" implies a negative evaluation of the movie, as the critic is expressing feelings of sadness and emotional discomfort. Additionally, the comparison to Chekhov being funny is unlikely to be a genuine positive statement, as Chekhov's humor is often tinged with sadness and melancholy. Therefore, the critic was not thinking positively of the movie.,positive The critic is thinking positively of the movie because they are drawing a comparison to Chekhov, who is known for his humor. The phrase "ache with sadness" could be seen as a irony, as it expresses the complexity of feelings evoked by the movie. Therefore, the critic is not thinking negatively of the movie.,Positive. The critic seems to be referring to the humorous aspect of the movie which reminds them of Chekhov's sense of humor. Thus, the overall tone of the review indicates a positive perception of the movie. In this case, the other answer 'negative' is incorrect because there aren't any indications of negative remarks or critique about the film. The phrase "ache with sadness" could potentially be misleading, but it is offset by the positive comparison to comedy.