Here is a question about this article: Japanese seismologist Yuji Yagi at the University of Tsukuba said that the earthquake occurred in two stages: "The 155-mile Longmenshan Fault tore in two sections, the first one ripping about seven yards, followed by a second one that sheared four yards." His data also showed that the earthquake lasted about two minutes and released 30 times the energy of the Great Hanshin earthquake of 1995 in Japan, which killed over 6,000 people. He pointed out that the shallowness of the epicenter and the density of population greatly increased the severity of the earthquake. Teruyuki Kato, a seismologist at the University of Tokyo, said that the seismic waves of the quake traveled a long distance without losing their power because of the firmness of the terrain in central China. According to reports from Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province, the earthquake tremors lasted for "about two or three minutes".
What is the answer to this question: Besides the population density, what else contributed to the severity of the quake?
****
So... shallowness of the epicenter


Here is a question about this article: There were too few ethnic Manchus to conquer China, so they gained strength by defeating and absorbing Mongols, but more importantly, adding Han Chinese to the Eight Banners. The Manchus had to create an entire "Jiu Han jun" (Old Han Army) due to the massive amount of Han Chinese soldiers which were absorbed into the Eight Banners by both capture and defection, Ming artillery was responsible for many victories against the Manchus, so the Manchus established an artillery corps made out of Han Chinese soldiers in 1641 and the swelling of Han Chinese numbers in the Eight Banners led in 1642 of all Eight Han Banners being created. It was defected Ming Han Chinese armies which conquered southern China for the Qing.
What is the answer to this question: What weapon helped the Ming defeat the Manchus?
****
So... artillery


Here is a question about this article: Another popular argument for affirmative action is the compensation argument. Blacks were mistreated in the past for a morally irrelevant characteristic of being black so society today should compensate for the injuries. This causes reverse discrimination in the form of preferential hirings, contracts, and scholarships as a means to ameliorate past wrongs. Many opponents argue that this form of reparation is morally indefensible because if blacks were harmed for being black in the past, then preferential treatment for this same trait is illogical. In addition, arguments are made that whites today who innocently benefited from past injustices should not be punished for something they had no control over. Therefore, they are being reverse discriminated against because they are receiving the punishment that should be given to people who willingly and knowingly benefited from discriminatory practices
What is the answer to this question: Which argument is being made by those who oppose affirmative action in relation to the compensation argument?
****
So...
preferential treatment for this same trait is illogical