[Q]: I can use this background: Natural resources include energy, minerals and other materials. Natural resources may be renewable or non-renewable. Non-renewable resources cannot be replaced. When they're gone, they're gone. Renewable resources can be replaced. They can supply human activities forever. Fossil fuels are crucial for modern human society. Fossil fuels are essential for transportation, industry and agriculture. Renewable energy resources tend to be clean. They emit fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Renewable resources often have other problems. They are more costly and less efficient than fossil fuels. Still, they have many advantages. Research is going into developing renewable resources. Conservation is the best way to increase resource availability. Anyone can conserve! You and your family can. Society can. The world can. Just reduce, reuse, recycle. Now, I have a new situation: Germany took steps to increase the use of renewable natural resources. Today, they are the leader in using renewable resources. Most of their energy requirements are met with renewable natural resources. But it's not the case with nearby Russia. Russia has been heavily depended on non-renewable natural resources. With the discovery of huge gas and oil reserves there is no sign that situation would change in Russia any time soon. Answer this question please: Which country's natural resources would most likely not last longer, Germany or Russia?
****
[A]: Russia
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Population growth, especially in developing countries, should make people think about how fast they are consuming resources. Governments around the world should seriously consider these issues. Developing nations will also increase demands on natural resources as they build more factories ( Figure below ). Improvements in technology, conservation of resources, and controls in population growth could all help to decrease the demand on natural resources. Now, I have a new situation: A new country called Zandonia has recently found itself in a crisis. They are consuming far to many natural resources. A recent study concluded that the amount of resources being consumed greatly increased over the past 3 years. This find coincides with a population boom in the region. Before the population boom the demand for natural recources was relatively stable. Answer this question please: Given a large number of people leave Zandonia, will the demand for natural resources increase or decrease?
++++++++++
output: decrease
Please answer this: I can use this background: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] Now, I have a new situation: Two neighboring lands experienced different climates. In Iceland, the actions of its people lead to a loss of animal and plant species. Denmark tried to keep the environment untouched as they understood its importance and the climate was unaffected. Answer this question please: Which country experienced more environmental degradation?
++++++++
Answer: Iceland
Problem: I can use this background: All of these animal behaviors are important. They help the animals get food for energy, make sure their young survive, or ensure that they, themselves, survive. Behaviors that help animals or their young survive, increase the animals' fitness. Animals with higher fitness have a better chance of passing their genes on to the next generation. If genes control behaviors that increase fitness, the behaviors become more common in the species. This occurs through the process of evolution by natural selection. Now, I have a new situation: David is a biologist. He was in the African savanna to study different species. Especially, he was interested in two species, rhinos and impalas. He noticed that in response to constant human encroachment of wildlife habitats, impalas have acquired some behaviors that help them and their young. Rhinos also have acquired some behaviors in response to the same threat. But their behaviors mostly failed them in that aspect. Answer this question please: In which species the behaviors in question would be more common, rhino or impala?

A: impala
Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: The Mercator projection is best within 15 degrees north or south of the equator. Landmasses or countries outside that zone get stretched out of shape. The further the feature is from the equator, the more out of shape it is stretched. For example, if you look at Greenland on a globe, you see it is a relatively small country near the North Pole. Yet, on a Mercator projection, Greenland looks almost as big the United States. Because Greenland is closer to the pole, the continent's shape and size are greatly increased. The United States is closer to its true dimensions. Now, I have a new situation: Will is comparing a map that is based off a Mercator projection and a globe. One of the first things he decides to compare is Iceland. After that he takes a look at a small island in the pacific, named Vraska, near the equator. Answer this question please: Which has a similar size on both the Globe and the Mercator projection, Iceland or Vraska?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Vraska
Problem: I can use this background: Cholesterol can't dissolve in the blood. It has to be transported to and from the cells by carriers called lipoproteins. Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, is known as "bad" cholesterol. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as good cholesterol. When too much LDL cholesterol circulates in the blood, it can slowly build up in the inner walls of the arteries that feed the heart and brain. Together with other substances, it can form plaque, and lead to atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, a heart attack or stroke can result. Cholesterol comes from the food you eat as well as being made by the body. To lower bad cholesterol, a diet low in saturated fat and dietary cholesterol should be followed. Regular aerobic exercise also lowers LDL cholesterol and increases HDL cholesterol. Now, I have a new situation: Manny and Joe checked their cholesterol levels. Joe found out that his cholesterol levels were within normal parameters, while Manny had very high cholesterol levels and was recommended some lifestyle changes. Answer this question please: Which person had lower levels of HDL cholesterol?

A:
Manny