You are given a background paragraph that describes one or more causal or qualitative relationships such as a relationship in economics or a scientific law and a story that makes use of the concepts or the relationship described in the provided paragraph. You are also given a question about the story that requires an understanding of the relationship described in the background paragraph and the story. You need to come up with an answer to the given question; the answer will be a span from either the question or the story. In order to correctly answer the given question, you need to understand the relationship mentioned in the background paragraph and should be able to use it to understand that in the story. Your answer can not consist of any word that is not mentioned in any of these: the background paragraph, the story, or the question. You can directly copy and paste a span from the story or the question while answering the given question.

Q: Background Paragraph: When humans dig up and use fossil fuels, we have an impact on the carbon cycle ( Figure below ). This carbon is not recycled until it is used by humans. The burning of fossil fuels releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is used by photosynthesis. So, there is more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere than is coming out of it. Carbon dioxide is known as a greenhouse gas , since it lets in light energy but does not let heat escape, much like the panes of a greenhouse. The increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is contributing to a global rise in Earth’s temperature, known as global warming or global climate change. 
Story: Two neighboring countries France and Spain were competing for economical supremacy in Europe. Spain dug up fossil fuels and used it as an energy source. France used alternative sources of energy. 
Question: Which country contributed more to climate change?

A: Spain.
****
Q: Background Paragraph: The trade-off theory of capital structure is the idea that a company chooses how much debt finance and how much equity finance to use by balancing the costs and benefits. The classical version of the hypothesis goes back to Kraus and Litzenberger[1] who considered a balance between the dead-weight costs of bankruptcy and the tax saving benefits of debt. Often agency costs are also included in the balance. This theory is often set up as a competitor theory to the pecking order theory of capital structure. A review of the literature is provided by Frank and Goyal.[2]

An important purpose of the theory is to explain the fact that corporations usually are financed partly with debt and partly with equity. It states that there is an advantage to financing with debt, the tax benefits of debt and there is a cost of financing with debt, the costs of financial distress including bankruptcy costs of debt and non-bankruptcy costs (e.g. staff leaving, suppliers demanding disadvantageous payment terms, bondholder/stockholder infighting, etc.). The marginal benefit of further increases in debt declines as debt increases, while the marginal cost increases, so that a firm that is optimizing its overall value will focus on this trade-off when choosing how much debt and equity to use for financing. 
Story: Company X stopped taking on more debt, and decided to file for bankruptcy, while company Y, kept benefiting from the tax benefits of debt, having a lower debt level. 
Question: Which company had more costs than benefits related to debt, company X or company Y?

A: company X.
****
Q: Background Paragraph: In the wiring of a building, the wires carrying the current in and out are different and never touch directly. The charge passing through the circuit always passes through an appliance (which acts as a resistor) or through another resistor, which limits the amount of current that can flow through a circuit. Appliances are designed to keep current at a relatively low level for safety purposes. The appropriate voltage and resistance in a circuit keeps the current in control and keeps the circuit safe. It is possible, however, for something to happen that causes the wire bringing the current in to come into contact with either the wire carrying the current out or the ground wire, thus causing what is called a short circuit . In a short circuit, some or all of the resistance is cut out of the circuit allowing the voltage to push a huge current through the wires. 
Story: Greg is an electrical engineer. He works for an engineering firm that builds houses. Yesterday, Greg was checking two of the houses. He noticed that one of the houses had short circuit. He labeled that as case A. But the other house didn't have short circuit. He labeled that as case B. 
Question: Would case B see less or more resistance cut out than case A?

A:
less.
****