input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: 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 0.40.9% 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] Now, I have a new situation: 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. Answer this question please: Which country would be subject to bigger effect of the education gender gap, Ethiopia or Botswana?
++++++++++
output: Botswana

input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Nearsightedness, or myopia, is the condition in which nearby objects are seen clearly, but distant objects appear blurry. The Figure below shows how it occurs. The eyeball is longer (from front to back) than normal. This causes images to be focused in front of the retina instead of on the retina. Myopia can be corrected with concave lenses. The lenses focus images farther back in the eye, so they fall on the retina instead of in front of it. Now, I have a new situation: John and Keith are two friends. They went to see an ophthalmologist for an eye cheek up. The doctor found that John had myopia, but Keith had normal eyes. He advised them according to his findings. Answer this question please: Who would most likely not need concave lenses, John or Keith?
++++++++++
output: Keith

input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Currently, millions of individuals with high cholesterol take a similar type of drug, known as a statin. The drug, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase), the rate limiting enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis, decreases blood levels of cholesterol by induce the expression of low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors in the liver. The increased levels of the LDL-receptors stimulate the catabolism of plasma LDL, removing cholesterol from plasma, which is an important determinant of atherosclerosis. You may know of people who take a statin to help with their cholesterol levels. However, these drugs probably work slightly differently in many of those people. In some, it lowers their cholesterol significantly; in others it may lower it only moderately; and in some, it may have no significant effect at all. (Luckily for those individuals, there are multiple versions of the statins, so different drugs can be tested to find the proper combination for that individual.) Why the difference? Because of the genetic background of all people; the different single nucleotide polymorphisms that make us all different. Pharmacogenomics, a combination of pharmacology and genomics (the study of the genome) that refers to the study of the relationship between pharmaceuticals and genetics, may explain and simplify this problem. Now, I have a new situation: Ben and Andy were two old friends. They both have high levels of cholesterol. Ben was prescribed cholesterol medication, while Andy didn't go to the doctor because he was careless. Answer this question please: Which friend took a drug that decreases blood levels of cholesterol?
++++++++++
output: Ben

input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: The dangers of global warming are being increasingly studied by a wide global consortium of scientists. These scientists are increasingly concerned about the potential long-term effects of global warming on our natural environment and on the planet. Of particular concern is how climate change and global warming caused by anthropogenic, or human-made releases of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, can act interactively, and have adverse effects upon the planet, its natural environment and humans' existence. It is clear the planet is warming, and warming rapidly. This is due to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by greenhouse gases, which trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere because of their more complex molecular structure which allows them to vibrate and in turn trap heat and release it back towards the Earth. This warming is also responsible for the extinction of natural habitats, which in turn leads to a reduction in wildlife population.The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the group of the leading climate scientists in the world) concluded that the earth will warm anywhere from 2.7 to almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 6 degrees Celsius) between 1990 and 2100. Now, I have a new situation: Rob was evaluating two research studies on climate change, study A and study B. Study A explained how increased greenhouse gases would affect the climate. On the other hand, study B showed how decreased greenhouse gases would affect the climate. Rob found the studies very interesting. Answer this question please: Would study B see less or more wildlife population than study A?
++++++++++
output:
more