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.
--------
Question: Background Paragraph: Continued heating of the water after the ice has completely melted will now increase the kinetic energy of the liquid molecules and the temperature will rise. Assuming that the atmospheric pressure is standard, the temperature will rise steadily until it reaches 100°C. At this point, the added energy from the heat will cause the liquid to begin to vaporize. As with the previous state change, the temperature will remain at 100°C while the water molecules are going from the liquid to the gas or vapor state. Once all the liquid has completely boiled away, continued heating of the steam (remember the container is closed) will increase its temperature above 100°C. 
Story: Tommy sets two pots of water, Pot A and Pot B, on the stove and sets each burner to a different temperature. Tommy is unable to see what the temperatures of the burners are though. He sits around patiently and waits until he notices that Pot B's water is beginning to vaporize, while Pot A's water is not vaporizing. 
Question: The water in which pot is hotter?

Answer: Pot B.


Question: Background Paragraph: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided.". 
Story: Michael and Robert are scientists who work in a nuclear reactor facility. Michael was replacing a fuel rod in the nuclear reactor when a small explosion happened, causing Michael to be exposed to high doses of radiation in a short period of time.  Robert was in the adjacent room when the explosion happened, and as a result he only suffered low doses of radiation. 
Question: Who is more likely to suffer hair loss?

Answer: Michael.


Question: Background Paragraph: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat.

The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible.

Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1]. 
Story: Two neighboring lands experienced different climates. In Iceland, the actions of its people lead to a loss of animal and plant species. Denmark tried to keep the environment untouched as they understood its importance and the climate was unaffected. 
Question: Which country experienced a more reduced biological diversity?

Answer:
Iceland.