niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Background Paragraph: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. 
Story: Seeing wildlife in wetland areas has been all the rage lately, and Steve wanted to take his family on a trip to some wetlands. He had the option of two different wetland areas to visit. Timmons Wetlands, that has seen a population boom of sorts because of increased agriculture in the area, and Laslo Wetlands that has been somewhat removed from agricultural expansion. They want to make sure to see the most wildlife while on their trip.
Output: Will Laslo Wetlands have more or less wildlife than Timmons Wetlands?
Background Paragraph: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. 
Story: Seeing wildlife in wetland areas has been all the rage lately, and Steve wanted to take his family on a trip to some wetlands. He had the option of two different wetland areas to visit. Timmons Wetlands, that has seen a population boom of sorts because of increased agriculture in the area, and Laslo Wetlands that has been somewhat removed from agricultural expansion. They want to make sure to see the most wildlife while on their trip.
Output: Will Timmons Wetlands have more or less wildlife than Laslo Wetlands?
Background Paragraph: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. 
Story: Seeing wildlife in wetland areas has been all the rage lately, and Steve wanted to take his family on a trip to some wetlands. He had the option of two different wetland areas to visit. Timmons Wetlands, that has seen a population boom of sorts because of increased agriculture in the area, and Laslo Wetlands that has been somewhat removed from agricultural expansion. They want to make sure to see the most wildlife while on their trip.
Output: Will Timmons Wetlands or Laslo Wetlands  have less channelization?
Background Paragraph: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. 
Story: Seeing wildlife in wetland areas has been all the rage lately, and Steve wanted to take his family on a trip to some wetlands. He had the option of two different wetland areas to visit. Timmons Wetlands, that has seen a population boom of sorts because of increased agriculture in the area, and Laslo Wetlands that has been somewhat removed from agricultural expansion. They want to make sure to see the most wildlife while on their trip.
Output: Will Timmons Wetlands or Laslo Wetlands have more channelization?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Does Sarah's city do more or less harm to the environment than Sophie's?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Does Sophie's city do more or less harm to the environment than Sarah's?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Which sister is less likely to develop lung cancer?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Which sister is more likely to develop lung cancer?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Who is less likely to die from air pollution?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Who is less susceptible to other diseases?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Who is more likely to die from air pollution?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Who is more susceptible to other diseases?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Will the percentage of people with asthma be higher in Sophie's city or Sarah's city?
Background Paragraph: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That’s because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. 
Story: Sarah and Sophie are sisters living in two different cities. Sarah lives in a very rural area with hardly any air pollution. Sophie lives in a heavily industrialized urban area with many factories and people driving cars to their destinations. This all leads to Sophie's city having a large amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Output: Will the percentage of people with asthma be lower in Sophie's city or Sarah's city?
Background Paragraph: Collision theory tells us that molecules need to collide in order for a reaction to take place. All else being equal, anything that increases the frequency of collisions would also increase the rate of reaction. One way to do this is to increase the concentrations of one or more of the reactants. Using a real world example, a busy freeway will experience much more frequent car collisions than a fairly empty neighborhood street. Similarly, forcing more randomly moving molecules into the same amount of space will cause an increased number of collisions over a given length of time, providing the reactants with more opportunities to transform into products. 
Story: Jordan and Elizabeth are performing a chemistry experiment for the science fair. Jordan uses a high concentration of the reactants when starting his reactions. Elizabeth uses a low concentration of the reactants when she starts her reactions.
Output: Who will have reactions that occur at a higher rate?
Background Paragraph: Collision theory tells us that molecules need to collide in order for a reaction to take place. All else being equal, anything that increases the frequency of collisions would also increase the rate of reaction. One way to do this is to increase the concentrations of one or more of the reactants. Using a real world example, a busy freeway will experience much more frequent car collisions than a fairly empty neighborhood street. Similarly, forcing more randomly moving molecules into the same amount of space will cause an increased number of collisions over a given length of time, providing the reactants with more opportunities to transform into products. 
Story: Jordan and Elizabeth are performing a chemistry experiment for the science fair. Jordan uses a high concentration of the reactants when starting his reactions. Elizabeth uses a low concentration of the reactants when she starts her reactions.
Output: Who will have reactions that occur at a lower rate?
Background Paragraph: Collision theory tells us that molecules need to collide in order for a reaction to take place. All else being equal, anything that increases the frequency of collisions would also increase the rate of reaction. One way to do this is to increase the concentrations of one or more of the reactants. Using a real world example, a busy freeway will experience much more frequent car collisions than a fairly empty neighborhood street. Similarly, forcing more randomly moving molecules into the same amount of space will cause an increased number of collisions over a given length of time, providing the reactants with more opportunities to transform into products. 
Story: Jordan and Elizabeth are performing a chemistry experiment for the science fair. Jordan uses a high concentration of the reactants when starting his reactions. Elizabeth uses a low concentration of the reactants when she starts her reactions.
Output: Who will have reactions with less frequent collisions between the reactant molecules?
Background Paragraph: Collision theory tells us that molecules need to collide in order for a reaction to take place. All else being equal, anything that increases the frequency of collisions would also increase the rate of reaction. One way to do this is to increase the concentrations of one or more of the reactants. Using a real world example, a busy freeway will experience much more frequent car collisions than a fairly empty neighborhood street. Similarly, forcing more randomly moving molecules into the same amount of space will cause an increased number of collisions over a given length of time, providing the reactants with more opportunities to transform into products. 
Story: Jordan and Elizabeth are performing a chemistry experiment for the science fair. Jordan uses a high concentration of the reactants when starting his reactions. Elizabeth uses a low concentration of the reactants when she starts her reactions.
Output: Who will have reactions with more frequent collisions between the reactant molecules?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where fewer fires occurred?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where leaves are not the principal source of soil organic matter?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where leaves are the principal source of soil organic matter?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where more fires occurred?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where the soil had a higher acidity?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel where the soil had a lower acidity?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel with a thicker A horizon?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel with a thinner A horizon?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel with fewer grass root systems in its soil?
Background Paragraph: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. 
Story: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties.
Output: Which person inherited a parcel with more grass root systems in its soil?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would be subject to bigger effect of the education gender gap, Ethiopia or Botswana?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would be subject to smaller effect of the education gender gap, Ethiopia or Botswana?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would expect faster economic growth, Ethiopia or Sudan?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would expect slower economic growth, Ethiopia or Sudan?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would experience between 1.2% and 1.5% total missed GDP, Ethiopia or Sudan?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Which country would not experience between 1.2% and 1.5% total missed GDP, Ethiopia or Sudan?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Would Ethiopia more likely or more likely not experience between 1.2% and 1.5% total missed GDP?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Would Ethiopia's economic growth be slower or faster than Sudan's one?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Would Sudan more likely or more likely not experience between 1.2% and 1.5% total missed GDP?
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]. 
Story: 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.
Output: Would Sudan's economic growth be slower or faster than Ethiopia's one?
Background Paragraph: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. 
Story: There are two lakes in southern Indiana that are popular places for families of nearby cities to visit for picnics and parties. Lake Mahoe is right next to a large farm that grows all kinds of crops for the town. The owner of the farm also rents out his barn regularly so people can use it for celebrations. Lake Tresco is located near a school and children will often come play at it during recess.
Output: Are dead zones less prevalent in lake Mahoe or lake Tresco?
Background Paragraph: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. 
Story: There are two lakes in southern Indiana that are popular places for families of nearby cities to visit for picnics and parties. Lake Mahoe is right next to a large farm that grows all kinds of crops for the town. The owner of the farm also rents out his barn regularly so people can use it for celebrations. Lake Tresco is located near a school and children will often come play at it during recess.
Output: Are dead zones more prevalent in lake Mahoe or lake Tresco?