Q: I read this background article the other day: Beginning in September 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will require larger, more prominent cigarette health warnings on all cigarette packaging and advertisements in the United States. These warnings are a significant advancement in communicating the dangers of smoking. These new cigarette health warnings contains nine different warnings that will increase awareness of the specific health risks associated with smoking, such as death, addiction, lung disease, cancer, stroke and heart disease. These warnings include: I am facing a new situation today: Dahlia has smoked cigarettes every day for many years. Dahlia's daughter, Samantha, has never smoked a cigarette in her life. Besides this difference, Dahlia and Samantha have similar activity levels and eat a similar diet. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who has a higher risk of having a stroke?
A: Dahlia
Question: I read this background article the other day: Another example of negative feedback has to do with blood glucose levels. When glucose (sugar) levels in the blood are too high, the pancreas secretes insulin to stimulate the absorption of glucose and the conversion of glucose into glycogen, which is stored in the liver. As blood glucose levels decrease, less insulin is produced. When glucose levels are too low, another hormone called glucagon is produced, which causes the liver to convert glycogen back to glucose. I am facing a new situation today: Tim and Fred were two students. Tim studied about negative feedback and the pancreas, while Fred studied about the stomach and the jejunum. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which student read more about glycogen being stored in the liver?
Answer: Tim
[Q]: 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: Tim and Jeb were both studying chemical engineering. At a certain point in time, Jeb started studying chemicals that are not harmful for the environment, while Tim started learning about chemicals that were once used, but now are known to be harmful for the environment. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which student studied less about gasoline?
****
[A]: Jeb
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in matter. In everyday usage, temperature indicates a measure of how hot or cold an object is. Temperature is an important parameter in chemistry. When a substance changes from solid to liquid, it is because there was an increase in the temperature of the material. Chemical reactions usually proceed faster if the temperature is increased. Many unstable materials (such as enzymes) will be viable longer at lower temperatures. I am facing a new situation today: John is a scientist. Yesterday, he conducted several tests, test A, test B, test C, test D, test E, and test F. In test A he kept a substance in solid state. Then in test B he changed the same substance to liquid state. In test C he conducted a chemical reaction in room temperature. Then in test D he conducted the same chemical reaction in higher temperature. In test E he kept some enzymes in high temperature. Finally, in test F he kept the same enzymes in lower temperature. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would test B see higher or lower temperature than test A?
++++++++++
output: higher
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: As a young man, Bohr worked in Rutherford's lab in England. Because Rutherford's model was weak on the position of the electrons, Bohr focused on them. He hypothesized that electrons can move around the nucleus only at fixed distances from the nucleus based on the amount of energy they have. He called these fixed distances energy levels, or electron shells. He thought of them as concentric spheres, with the nucleus at the center of each sphere. In other words, the shells consisted of sphere within sphere within sphere. Furthermore, electrons with less energy would be found at lower energy levels, closer to the nucleus. Those with more energy would be found at higher energy levels, farther from the nucleus. Bohr also hypothesized that if an electron absorbed just the right amount of energy, it would jump to the next higher energy level. Conversely, if it lost the same amount of energy, it would jump back to its original energy level. However, an electron could never exist in between two energy levels. These ideas are illustrated in the Figure below . I am facing a new situation today: Greg was studying Bohr's model. He found it helpful to categorize different scenarios in the model. First, he labeled electron with higher energy as cat A, and electron with lower energy as cat B. Then he labeled electron that gained energy as cat C, and election that lost energy as cat D. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would cat D Jump to higher level or go to lower level?
++++++++
Answer: go to lower level
Question: I read this background article the other day: Trees can benefit fauna. The most common examples are silvopasture where cattle, goats, or sheep browse on grasses grown under trees. In hot climates, the animals are less stressed and put on weight faster when grazing in a cooler, shaded environment. The leaves of trees or shrubs can also serve as fodder. I am facing a new situation today: Two farmers from the same village raised animals. The village was situated in a hot climate. They took the animals to graze on pastures nearby. Tom took his animals to a silvopasture, while Bill took his to a grassland. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farmer had fewer animals grazing under trees?
Answer:
Bill