Q: I have a new situation: Timber village started a channelization process by draining all the swamps near their village. Hill village situated 10 miles to the south, left their swamps untouched. But I can use this background: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. What is an answer for this question: Which village converted more swampland into farmland?
A: Timber
Question: I have a new situation: Sweden and Norway had taken two different approaches in dealing with their electric power suppliers. Sweden has broken up large companies into many smaller companies. But Norway kept the handful of large electric power suppliers they had intact, and didn't take initiative to increase their numbers. But I can use this background: Since the 1990s, many regions have broken up the generation and distribution of electric power to provide a more competitive electricity market. While such markets can be abusively manipulated with consequent adverse price and reliability impact to consumers, generally competitive production of electrical energy leads to worthwhile improvements in efficiency. However, transmission and distribution are harder problems since returns on investment are not as easy to find. What is an answer for this question: Would companies in Sweden find transmission and distribution harder or easier?
Answer: harder
[Q]: I have a new situation: The Marlan Sea and The Jowal Sea are two bodies of water currently being studied by scientists at the Hamford Research Complex. The goal of the study is to find out which sea would be a better choice to support the construction of an experimental underwater laboratory. The employees first begin by analyzing the surrounding regions of the two seas. They discover that the Marlan Sea has many rivers flowing into it. The vast majority of these rivers are located near farms that grow crops to sell to the local cities. The Jowal Sea is surrounded by mostly uninhabited land. The rivers that flow into it have almost no human civilizations near them and instead are surrounded by flat plains and some forests. But I can use this background: The quantity of small plastic fragments floating in the north-east Pacific Ocean increased a hundredfold between 1972 and 2012.Marine pollution is a generic term for the harmful entry into the ocean of chemicals or particles. The main culprits are those using the rivers for disposing of their waste. The rivers then empty into the ocean, often also bringing chemicals used as fertilizers in agriculture. The excess of oxygen-depleting chemicals in the water leads to hypoxia and the creation of a dead zone.Marine debris, also known as marine litter, is human-created waste that has ended up floating in a lake, sea, ocean, or waterway. Oceanic debris tends to accumulate at the center of gyres and coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter.In addition, the Pacific Ocean has served as the crash site of satellites, including Mars 96, Fobos-Grunt, and Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. What is an answer for this question: Hypoxia will be less likely to occur in which sea?
****
[A]: Jowal
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Dan studied genetic engineering. He was applying his knowledge of genetic engineering to develop better crops. Recently, he had successfully developed a crop, crop A, that was herbicide tolerant. To determine the versatility of the crop he compared it with another crop that was not tolerant of herbicides, crop B. The results of his research would allow his company to market the new crop. But I can use this background: In addition to insects, weeds have also been a menace to farmers - just ask anyone with a garden how much they hate weeds. They can quickly compete for water and nutrients needed by other plants. Sure, farmers can use herbicides to kill weeds, but do these chemicals also harm the crops? Can biotechnology help with this issue? Some crops have also been genetically engineered to acquire tolerance to the herbicides - allowing the crops to grow, but killing the weeds. But the lack of cost effective herbicides with a broad range of activity - that do not harm crops - is a problem in weed management. Multiple applications of numerous herbicides are routinely needed to control the wide range of weeds that are harmful to crops. And at times these herbicides are being used as a preventive measure that is, spraying to prevent weeds from developing rather than spraying after weeds form. So these chemicals are being added to crops. This practice is followed by mechanical and/or hand weeding to control weeds that are not controlled by the chemicals. Crops that are tolerant of herbicides would obviously be a tremendous benefit to farmers ( Figure above ). The introduction of herbicide tolerant crops has the potential to reduce the number of chemicals needed during a growing season, thereby increasing crop yield due to improved weed management and decreased harm to the crops. What is an answer for this question: Which crop would need less number of chemicals, crop A or crop B?
++++++++++
output: crop A
Please answer this: I have a new situation: Dan is in his physics lab. He is experimenting with colliding particles. He has two samples of particles, sample A and sample B. Sample A contains gas particles, but sample B does not contain gas particles. But I can use this background: Another thing we can see in this animation is that particles are constantly colliding with one another. One assumption that we make when talking about collisions between gas particles is that they are completely elastic collisions. In an elastic collision , momentum is conserved, which means that none of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles is lost in some other form (such as the emission of light). This makes sense, because if energy were lost in collisions, the speeds of the particles would gradually decrease over time, and eventually everything would condense down into a solid form. What is an answer for this question: Which sample's kinetic energy likely be retained, sample A or sample B?
++++++++
Answer: sample A
Question: I have a new situation: Greg is an avid skier. He competes in many skiing competitions. He won several medals in those competitions. This November he will compete in two competitions - competition A, which is ski cross and competition B, which is an alpine skiing competition. Greg's fellow skier Bob is also competing in the same competitions. They both are exited about it. But I can use this background: Ski cross is a type of skiing competition. Despite its being a timed racing event, it is often considered part of freestyle skiing because it incorporates terrain features traditionally found in freestyle. Ski cross courses have both naturally occurring terrain and artificial features including big-air jumps and high-banked turns. What sets ski cross apart from other alpine skiing disciplines is that there's more than one skier racing down the course.[1] Any intentional contact with other competitors leads to disqualification. What is an answer for this question: Is intentional contact is an issue or not an issue in competitin B?
Answer:
not an issue