Q: I read this background article the other day: Capital flight, in economics, occurs when assets or money rapidly flow out of a country, due to an event of economic consequence. Such events could be an increase in taxes on capital or capital holders or the government of the country defaulting on its debt that disturbs investors and causes them to lower their valuation of the assets in that country, or otherwise to lose confidence in its economic strength. This leads to a disappearance of wealth, and is usually accompanied by a sharp drop in the exchange rate of the affected countrydepreciation in a variable exchange rate regime, or a forced devaluation in a fixed exchange rate regime. This fall is particularly damaging when the capital belongs to the people of the affected country, because not only are the citizens now burdened by the loss in the economy and devaluation of their currency, but probably also, their assets have lost much of their nominal value. This leads to dramatic decreases in the purchasing power of the country's assets and makes it increasingly expensive to import goods and acquire any form of foreign facilities, e.g. medical facilities. I am facing a new situation today: Nirvania continued to develop and became a first world country by 2025. Its economic strength and the accumulation of capital, led to prosperity and citizen happiness. On the other side of the river, Borania, however, decided to return to dictatorship and it's citizens and investors started to lose hope and move their capital to foreign accounts and investments. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country has more confident citizens?
A: Nirvania
Question: I read this background article the other day: The first direct observational hint that the universe has a finite age came from the observations of 'recession velocities', mostly by Vesto Slipher, combined with distances to the 'nebulae' (galaxies) by Edwin Hubble in a work published in 1929. Earlier in the 20th century, Hubble and others resolved individual stars within certain nebulae, thus determining that they were galaxies, similar to, but external to, our Milky Way Galaxy. In addition, these galaxies were very large and very far away. Spectra taken of these distant galaxies showed a red shift in their spectral lines presumably caused by the Doppler effect, thus indicating that these galaxies were moving away from the Earth. In addition, the farther away these galaxies seemed to be (the dimmer they appeared to us) the greater was their redshift, and thus the faster they seemed to be moving away. This was the first direct evidence that the universe is not static but expanding. The first estimate of the age of the universe came from the calculation of when all of the objects must have started speeding out from the same point. Hubble's initial value for the universe's age was very low, as the galaxies were assumed to be much closer than later observations found them to be. I am facing a new situation today: Bob is an astrophysicist. He was pondering about the beginning of our universe. He pinpointed the time when the universe just began to exist. He labeled it as point A. To compare it with present situation of the universe he labeled the present time as point B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which time the other galaxies would seem brighter, point A or point B?
Answer: point A
[Q]: 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?
****
[A]: sample B
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Clouds on Earth are made of water vapor. Venus's clouds are a lot less pleasant. They are made of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and large amounts of corrosive sulfuric acid! The atmosphere of Venus is so thick that the pressure on the surface of Venus is very high. In fact, it is 90 times greater than the pressure at Earth's surface! The thick atmosphere causes a strong greenhouse effect. As a result, Venus is the hottest planet. Even though it is farther from the Sun, Venus is much hotter even than Mercury. Temperatures at the surface reach 465C (860F). That's hot enough to melt lead! I am facing a new situation today: Two groups of children studied about some of the planets from our Solar system and their atmospheres. Group E studied about Earth, while group V studied about the planet Venus. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which group studied less about clouds made of carbon dioxide?
++++++++++
output: Group E
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Cholesterol has been implicated in heart disease for decades. Atherosclerosis is a disorder of the arteries in which cholesterol and other materials are deposited on the interior of the arterial wall. These deposits lead to the formation of plaques that can restrict or even block the flow of blood through these blood vessels (see Figure below ). A decrease in the flow of blood can lead to high blood pressure and a lowered oxygen supply to the heart muscle. A complete blockage of blood flow to parts of the heart (a heart attack) can cause significant damage due to oxygen deprivation, in some cases leading to death. I am facing a new situation today: Two teams of researchers studied different diseases. team Alpha studied people with cholesterol, while team Beta studied people with Parkinson's disease. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which team studied more people with plaques?
++++++++
Answer: Alpha
Question: I read this background article the other day: While the Grants were on the Galapagos, a drought occurred. As a result, fewer seeds were available for finches to eat. Birds with smaller beaks could crack open and eat only the smaller seeds. Birds with bigger beaks could crack and eat seeds of all sizes. As a result, many of the small-beaked birds died in the drought. Birds with bigger beaks survived and reproduced (see Figure below ). Within 2 years, the average beak size in the finch population increased. Evolution by natural selection had occurred. I am facing a new situation today: Two islands inhabited by many species of finches went through some climatic changes during the past several years. While Park island hat wetter than average years, Boat island experienced years of drought, so many birds died. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island had less large-beaked birds survive?
Answer:
Park