TASK DEFINITION:  You are given a background paragraph that describes one or more causal or physical relationships, such as a relationship in economics, scientific law, or nature. You need to come up with a fictional story that makes use of the concepts or the relationship described in the provided paragraph. Make sure that your story does not repeat the relation in the given paragraph (e.g., by avoiding verbatim copies of the given paragraph). Start by reading the background paragraph, and determine what relationship(s) are in the paragraph. Write a story that involves the relationship(s) that you determined are in the background paragraph. Try to use your own words as much as possible and not repeat the background paragraph. Feel free to make up places and events as long as they tie back to the background paragraph in a way that you can ask a question about.
PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: Chemical reactions follow the laws of thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. This law is also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the energy available after a chemical reaction is always less than that at the beginning of a reaction. This is also commonly referred to as entropy. Entropy can be described as the degree of disorder in a system . That is, as energy is transferred from one form to another, some of the energy is lost as heat, and the amount of available energy decreases. As the energy decreases, the disorder in the system increases, and, by definition, the entropy increases. Ice melting provides an example in which entropy increases. Entropy essentially is a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a chemical reaction, to proceed in a particular direction.

SOLUTION: Marcus is in a lab working on an experiment. He combines two chemicals to see if they react and the solution starts to boil. He notices that the air above the chemicals reacting has greatly increased in heat.

PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: The Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. The oil would travel into the United States. In the U.S. it would be refined. The pipeline is controversial. A leak could cause damage to wildlife habitat. A leak could also release enough oil to contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer. The Aquifer is crucial to agriculture and urban development in the Midwestern U.S. When burned, the fuel from the oil sands would increase pollutants. Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would increase. The future of the pipeline is currently on hold.

SOLUTION: Lawmakers were debating the pros and cons of Keystone XL Pipeline. One group of lawmakers proposed that the pipeline be constructed. They put their proposal in proposal A. The rival group of lawmakers proposed that the pipeline should not be build. They put their proposal in proposal B. Lawmakers would now have to choose one of the proposals.

PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: This individual monetary gain creates an increase in the overall economic productivity of a country. Girls are underrepresented in schooling, meaning that investments aimed specifically at educating women should produce bigger dividends.[9] Although investment in women's education is not present everywhere, David Dollar and Roberta Gatti have presented findings that show that this decision, along with other failures to invest in women are not “an efficient economic choice for developing countries” and that "countries that under-invest grow more slowly.”[3] Looking holistically at the opportunity cost of not investing in girls, the total missed GDP growth is between 1.2% and 1.5%.[10] When looking at different regions, it is estimated that 0.4–0.9% of the difference in GDP growth is accounted for solely by differences in the gender gap in education.[1] The effect of the educational gender gap is more pronounced when a country is only moderately poor.[3] Thus the incentive to invest in women goes up as a country moves out of extreme poverty.[3].

SOLUTION:
Ethiopia and Sudan are two neighboring countries where 
extreme poverty can be seen. Still Ethiopia has pushed for women's education in the last decade. Sudan has largely failed in investing on women's education. Elsewhere in Africa, the country of Botswana has just overcome extreme poverty, thanks to vast mineral deposits. But they invested on women's education.