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.

[EX Q]: Background Paragraph: When the temperature of reactants is higher, the rate of the reaction is faster. At higher temperatures, particles of reactants have more energy, so they move faster. They are more likely to bump into one another and to collide with greater force. For example, when you fry an egg, turning up the heat causes the egg to cook faster. The same principle explains why storing food in a cold refrigerator reduces the rate at which food spoils (see Figure below ). Both food frying and food spoiling are chemical reactions that happen faster at higher temperatures. 
Story: John just opened a coffee shop. He offers two types of coffee, coffee A and coffee B. In coffee A he mixes ingredients in hot water, but in coffee B he mixes ingredients in cold water. He also notices that his shop gets very busy in the morning, but during evening he doesn't have many customers. 
Question: In which coffee the particles would move faster, coffee A or coffee B?
[EX A]: coffee A.

[EX Q]: Background Paragraph: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number – economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher. 
Story: Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty. 
Question: Would people in Russia most likely be more happy or less happy than people in Finland?
[EX A]: less happy.

[EX Q]: Background Paragraph: Turner et al (2006) derived crash prediction models for this report’s predecessor and found a
pronounced ‘safety in numbers’ effect in the models. Using the crash prediction model for mid-block
locations, generic motorist and cyclist volumes can be used to demonstrate the impacts on the
expected crash rate of varying motor vehicle and cycle volumes. As shown in figure 2.20, an increase
in the proportion of cyclists to the overall traffic volume causes an increase in expected crashes at
mid-block locations, but the crash rate increases at a decreasing rate. That is to say, the crash rate per
cyclist goes down as the cycle volume increases. 
Story: There was a week long bike tournament. Day 1 had 500 cyclists left.  Day 2 had 400 cyclists left. Day 3 had 300 cyclists left. Day 4 had 200 cyclists left. Day 5 had 100 cyclists left. Day 6 had 50 cyclists left. Day 7 had 10 cyclists left. Tom won the tournament and got a big trophy. 
Question: What day had a lower crash rate per cyclist: Day 4 or Day 5?
[EX A]:
Day 4.