user: input question: I read this background article the other day: Since the 1990s, many regions have broken up the generation and distribution of electric power to provide a more competitive electricity market. While such markets can be abusively manipulated with consequent adverse price and reliability impact to consumers, generally competitive production of electrical energy leads to worthwhile improvements in efficiency. However, transmission and distribution are harder problems since returns on investment are not as easy to find.  I am facing a new situation today: Sweden and Norway had taken two different approaches in dealing with their electric power suppliers. Sweden has broken up large companies into many smaller companies. But Norway kept the handful of large electric power suppliers they had intact, and didn't take initiative to increase their numbers.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would Norway see improvement or no improvement in efficiency in electric power market????
output answer: no improvement

input question: I read this background article the other day: 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.  I am facing a new situation today: 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.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which house would more likely cause brain damage, house A or house B????
output answer: house A

input question: I read this background article the other day: A) In a straight-chain molecule, all the carbon atoms are lined up in a row like cars of a train. The carbon atoms form the “backbone” of the molecule. B) In a branched-chain molecule, at least one of the carbon atoms branches off from the backbone. C) In a cyclic molecule, the chain of carbon atoms is joined at the two ends to form a ring. Each ring usually contains just five or six carbon atoms, but rings can join together to form larger molecules. A cyclic molecule generally has higher boiling and melting points than straight-chain and branched-chain molecules.  I am facing a new situation today: Mark works as a scientist for a molecular research institute. Today, he has three samples of molecule in front of him, sample A, sample B, and sample C. Sample A is a straight-chain molecule; sample B is a branched-chain molecule; and sample C is a cyclic molecule. Mark's job is to determine the characteristics of each sample.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would sample C have higher or lower boiling point than sample B????
output answer: higher

input question: I read this background article the other day: Fish mortality is a parameter used in fisheries population dynamics to account for the loss of fish in a fish stock through death. The mortality can be divided into two types:  Natural mortality: the removal of fish from the stock due to causes not associated with fishing. Such causes can include disease, competition, cannibalism, old age, predation, pollution or any other natural factor that causes the death of fish. In fisheries models natural mortality is denoted by (M).[1] Fishing mortality: the removal of fish from the stock due to fishing activities using any fishing gear.[1] It is denoted by (F) in fisheries models.  I am facing a new situation today: Bob works as a scientist for a large fishing company in Norway. Norway's government has strict regulations on fishing to protect its fish stock. Part of Bob's job is to provide the government with fish mortality data. Today, he has two samples of fish to investigate, sample A and sample B. Bob concluded sample A had natural mortality, but sample B had fishing mortality.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: For which sample disease would not be a cause of death, sample A or sample B????
output answer:

assistant: sample B