Problem: I have a new situation: Kenya's Masai Mara wildebeest migration is one of the greatest spectacles in the natural world. Every year thousands of wildebeests cross the Mara river. John went to see the migration last year. He noticed that the wildebeests crossed the the river in a very large group. He noted that as case A. His guide told him that is not the case in other times of the year. The wildebeests cross the river in smaller groups in other times. John noted that as case B. The guide added that in both cases on thing is constant, they are attacked by the lions. But I can use this background: 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. What is an answer for this question: In which case wildebeests would have higher risk of attack from the lions, case A or case B?

A: case B
Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: In ancient Greece King Juno asked two of his court philosophers, philosopher A and philosopher B, to come up with two interesting problems. Philosopher A devised a clever paradox and presented it before the court. He called the paradox Problem A. But philosopher B didn't come up with a paradox. He too presented a clever problem which was not a paradox - he called it problem B. But I can use this background: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.[1][2] A paradox involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.[3][4][5] What is an answer for this question: Would problem A more likely or less likely have self contradiction than problem B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
more likely
input question: I have a new situation: Bill and Paul were farmers. Bill used insecticides to get read of aphids, while his buddy farmer Paul didn't. But I can use this background: Insecticide control of aphids is difficult, as they breed rapidly, so even small areas missed may enable the population to recover promptly. Aphids may occupy the undersides of leaves where spray misses them, while systemic insecticides do not move satisfactorily into flower petals. Finally, some aphid species are resistant to common insecticide classes including carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids.For small backyard infestations, spraying plants thoroughly with a strong water jet every few days may be sufficient protection. An insecticidal soap solution can be an effective household remedy to control aphids, but it only kills aphids on contact and has no residual effect. Soap spray may damage plants, especially at higher concentrations or at temperatures above 32 C (90 F); some plant species are sensitive to soap sprays. What is an answer for this question: Which farmer used an insecticidal soap solution to kill aphids????
output answer: Bill
I have a new situation: Two small cities of identical population are both having elections this year. Although they have the same small amount of people, the city of Kilmar is experiencing demographic stochasticity while the city of Plano is not. Every time an election arises, both cities become very active with citizens coming out in droves to listen to the candidates speak at town hall meetings through the months leading up to the election. But I can use this background: Demographic stochasticity refers to variability in population growth arising from sampling random births and deaths in a population of finite size. In small populations, demographic stochasticity will decrease the population growth rate, causing an effect similar to the Allee effect, which will increase the risk of population extinction. Whether or not demographic stochasticity can be considered a part of Allee effect is somewhat contentious however. The most current definition of Allee effect considers the correlation between population density and mean individual fitness. Therefore, random variation resulting from birth and death events would not be considered part of Allee effect as the increased risk of extinction is not a consequence of the changing fates of individuals within the population.Meanwhile, when demographic stochasticity results in fluctuations of sex ratios, it arguably reduces the mean individual fitness as population declines. For example, a fluctuation in small population that causes a scarcity in one sex would in turn limit the access of mates for the opposite sex, decreasing the fitness of the individuals within the population. This type of Allee effect will likely be more prevalent in monogamous species than polygynous species. What is an answer for this question: Which city's population will grow faster?
----
Answer: Plano
Q: I have a new situation: John works for the NSF. He has two research proposals in front of him, case A and case B. Both are looking for further funding. Case A research has been replicated by other researchers, but case B research could not be replicated by others. He needs to decide which research should get further funding. But I can use this background: Soon after the original study was published, other researchers tried to replicate the research. However, it could not be replicated. No other studies could find a link between the vaccine and autism. As a result, scientists became convinced that the original results were incorrect. Eventually, investigators determined that the original study was a fraud. They learned that its author had received a large amount of money to find evidence that the vaccine causes autism, so he faked his research results. If other scientists had not tried to replicate the research, the truth might never have come out. You can read more about this case at the URL below. What is an answer for this question: For which reasearch John should offer funding, case A or case B?
A: case A
[Q]: I have a new situation: Hank and Dean studied plate tectonics in college. Hank learned more about divergent boundaries, while Dean read more about convergent boundaries. But I can use this background: At the mid-oceanic ridges, two tectonic plates diverge from one another as new oceanic crust is formed by the cooling and solidifying of hot molten rock. Because the crust is very thin at these ridges due to the pull of the tectonic plates, the release of pressure leads to adiabatic expansion (without transfer of heat or matter) and the partial melting of the mantle, causing volcanism and creating new oceanic crust. Most divergent plate boundaries are at the bottom of the oceans; therefore, most volcanic activity on the Earth is submarine, forming new seafloor. Black smokers (also known as deep sea vents) are evidence of this kind of volcanic activity. Where the mid-oceanic ridge is above sea-level, volcanic islands are formed; for example, Iceland. What is an answer for this question: Which student read less about the forming of new oceanic crust?
****
[A]:
Dean