input question: I read this background article the other day: Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. Carbon dioxide also causes ocean acidification because it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. I am facing a new situation today: Indiana has decided it wants to do its best to stop contributing to global warming. The first place the government decides to look is at the number of factories that use fossil fuels in production. They plan to shut down many of them in the coming years. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Given Indiana does indeed shut down many of its factories, will this result in a higher or lower contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere????
output answer: lower

input question: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: 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. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will being closer to a pole cause a landmass to be stretched more or less on a Mercator projection compared to a landmass closer to the equator????
output answer: more

input question: I read this background article the other day: Air pollution can also indirectly cause other health issues and even deaths. Air pollutants can cause an increase in cancer including lung cancer, eye problems, and other conditions. For example, using certain chemicals on farms, such as the insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and toxic PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), can cause cancer. Indoors, pollutants such as radon or asbestos can also increase your cancer risk. Lastly, air pollution can lead to heart disease, including heart attack and stroke. I am facing a new situation today: The health inspectors reviewed data from two villages, Key and Auburn. Key village presented higher levels of both indoor and outdoor pollution. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which village had a lower number of health issues????
output answer: Auburn

input question: I read this background article the other day: "There is now unequivocal evidence that biodiversity loss reduces the efficiency by which ecological communities capture biologically essential resources, produce biomass, decompose and recycle biologically essential nutrients... There is mounting evidence that biodiversity increases the stability of ecosystem functions through time... Diverse communities are more productive because they contain key species that have a large influence on productivity and differences in functional traits among organisms increase total resource capture... The impacts of diversity loss on ecological processes might be sufficiently large to rival the impacts of many other global drivers of environmental change... Maintaining multiple ecosystem processes at multiple places and times requires higher levels of biodiversity than does a single process at a single place and time." I am facing a new situation today: Nicaragua is one of the most biodiverse countries in the Americas. They boast over five hundred species of birds, and thousands of species of plants. Across the pond in England the situation is completely different. Centuries of extensive farming, industrialization, and urban sprawls have made it one of the least biodiverse place on Earth. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which location would see lower total resource capture, Nicaragua or England????
output answer:
England