TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: Many chemicals that were once commonly used were later found out to be harmful to the environment , to human health, or both. The element lead was once a common additive to gasoline and to paint. Plumbing pipes were once typically made of lead. Only since the 1970s has the danger of lead become apparent. It causes brain damage and small children (who often chewed on objects painted with lead-based paint) are particularly susceptible. The use of lead in gasoline, paint, and plumbing pipes is now banned and new materials are being developed to replace the hazardous lead components. 
Story: John is trying to buy a house. Today, he saw two houses, house A and house B. House A was build in the 1920s. It has lead plumbing pipes and lead based paint. House B was build recently. It does not have lead plumbing pipes or lead based paint. 
Question: Which house would more likely cause brain damage, house A or house B?

SOLUTION: house A.

PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: A dilution effect is seen when animals living in a group "dilute" their risk of attack, each individual being just one of many in the group. George C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton proposed that group living evolved because it provides benefits to the individual rather than to the group as a whole, which becomes more conspicuous as it becomes larger. One common example is the shoaling of fish. Experiments provide direct evidence for the decrease in individual attack rate seen with group living, for example in Camargue horses in Southern France. The horse-fly often attacks these horses, sucking blood and carrying diseases. When the flies are most numerous, the horses gather in large groups, and individuals are indeed attacked less frequently. Water striders are insects that live on the surface of fresh water, and are attacked from beneath by predatory fish. Experiments varying the group size of the water striders showed that the attack rate per individual water strider decreases as group size increases. 
Story: Mike was visiting the African Savannah. One animal that interested him most was the African Buffalo. He noticed that the buffaloes would usually live in a large herd, often exceeding few hundreds. He noted that as case A. But sometimes the buffaloes would live in a small herd. He noted that as case B. Interestingly, there are incidents when an aggressive male buffalo would live by itself. He noted that as case C. 
Question: In case B, would an individual buffalo have lower or higher risk of attack than in case A?

SOLUTION: higher.

PROBLEM: Background Paragraph: Similar to the results of a negatively charged rod, if a positively charged rod is brought near the knob of a neutral electroscope, it will attract some electrons up from the leaves onto the knob. That process causes both of the leaves to be positively charged (excess protons), and the leaves will diverge. If the positively charged rob is actually touched to the knob, the rob will remove some electrons and then when the rob is removed, the electroscope will remain positively charged. This is a permanent positive charge. 
Story: Jim's dad is a scientist. While his dad is out working he goes to the lab in the basement and find an electroscope. The electroscope is currently in a neutral state. He then grabs a nearby rod that is positively charged and moves it near the knob of the electroscope. Fascinated he sees the leaves of the electroscope move apart from each other. 
Question: Given Jim actually touches the rod to the knob of the electroscope, will the rod remove electrons or add them?

SOLUTION:
remove.