Q: 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. Now, I have a new situation: Vince had a small rural farm. He needed to increase production and efficiency, so he started using herbicides. Danny was one of his farmer friends, he had a small acreage farm and he practiced permaculture, so no pesticides. Answer this question please: Which farmer didn't perform any applications of herbicide?
A: Danny
Question: I can use this background: Machines make work easier by increasing the amount of force that is applied, increasing the distance over which the force is applied, or changing the direction in which the force is applied. Contrary to popular belief, machines do not increase the amount of work that is done. They just change how the work is done. So if a machine increases the force applied, it must apply the force over a shorter distance. Similarly, if a machine increases the distance over which the force is applied, it must apply less force. Now, I have a new situation: Archimedes was a great scientist. He was also a great inventor of machines. He once said that if he could stand somewhere, he could move the earth with his machine. Hearing that, king of Sicily called Archimedes and his fellow scientist Ptolemy to come up with great inventions. Archimedes, as everyone expected, came up with a great machine. But Ptolemy couldn't do much in such a limited time. So, his device was not a machine. Answer this question please: Would Archimedes' device have created less or more applied force than Ptolemy's one?
Answer: more
[Q]: I can use this background: The Gaia hypothesis states that the biosphere is its own living organism. The hypothesis suggests that the Earth is self-regulating and tends to achieve a stable state, known as homeostasis . For example the composition of our atmosphere stays fairly consistent, providing the ideal conditions for life. When carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere, plants grow more quickly. As their growth continues, they remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this way, the amount of carbon dioxide stays fairly constant without human intervention. Now, I have a new situation: Two friends had a discussion about the Earth and what this reality might be. Tim believed in the Gaia hypothesis, while Olly believed in the Panspermia theory. Answer this question please: Which friend didn't believe that the biosphere is its own living organism?
****
[A]: Olly
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: There is worldwide concern about the relationship between climate change and the use of fossil fuels. Many scientists believe that increased use of these fuels (in vehicles and other gas-powered equipment) has the potential to irreversibly damage our environment. In addition to the environmental concerns, supplies of fossil fuels are finite, and because they are non-renewable energy sources, we will eventually need alternatives. New developments in batteries and other energy storage devices are being explored to help deal with these issues. Electrochemical processes are at the heart of these new technologies. Now, I have a new situation: Two countries used different fuels as power sources for their activities. Alsacia used fossil fuels, while Lorena devised more advanced energy storage devices, therefore relying on electricity. Answer this question please: Which country contributed more to climate change?
++++++++++
output: Alsacia
Please answer this: I can use this background: Enzymes increase the rate of chemical reactions by reducing the amount of activation energy needed for reactants to start reacting. One way this can happen is modeled in the Figure below . Enzymes aren't changed or used up in the reactions they catalyze, so they can be used to speed up the same reaction over and over again. Each enzyme is highly specific for the particular reaction is catalyzes, so enzymes are very effective. A reaction that would take many years to occur without its enzyme might occur in a split second with the enzyme. Enzymes are also very efficient, so waste products rarely form. Now, I have a new situation: Keith is a physician with the city hospital. He noticed that reactions inside human body happen in different rates. He specifically noticed two cases, case A and case B. In case A enzymes were present, but in case B enzymes were not present. Answer this question please: Which case would reqiure longer time, case A or case B?
++++++++
Answer: case B
Question: I can use this background: Communication is any way that animals share information. Many animals live in social groups. For these animals, being able to communicate is essential. Communicating increases the ability of group members to cooperate and avoid conflict. Communication may help animals work together to find food and defend themselves from predators. It also helps them find mates and care for their offspring. In addition, communication helps adult animals teach the next generation learned behaviors. Therefore, communication generally improves the chances of animals surviving and reproducing. Now, I have a new situation: There are 2 groups of prairie dogs that have been released into the wild. Group A was domesticated and therefor never learned to communicate danger to each other. Group B was rescued from a bad storm but lived in the wild for years before they were captured then released. One day the two groups encountered a lion that was trying to eat them. One of the members of group B made a peculiar high pitched sound, alerting the rest of it's members that there was something dangerous nearby and they all went inside their burrow and hid. The member of group A saw the lion and simply ran as fast as it could without altering any of the other members. Unfortunately one of group A's members was caught and eaten. Answer this question please: Will a domesticated group fair better or worse in the wild when compared to a wild group?
Answer:
worse