Problem: I read this background article the other day: Besides anthropogenic productivity of the land, the biodiversity of degraded land also declines, as previously mentioned.[12] With less biodiversity, this ecosystem is less adaptable to when disasters strike it[11][8] It has a smaller available food supply, in terms of plants, for animals, who then may die out or more likely may relocate. Proof of this decline is that presently 15-20% of Tibetan Plateau species are now considered endangered; and now because of this animal and plant absence, the soil quality of these degraded lands is very poor.[1] It does not hold the necessary nutrients, such as water, nitrogen, and carbon, essential to either supporting life or inviting life back to that land.[6] As a result of such carbon and nitrogen loss in the Tibetan Plateau, $8,033/ha and $13,315/ha were respectively lost in economic terms. Soils are further weakened by dust storms whose frequency increases because of degradation.[11][4] Erosion of soil becomes a bigger problem, since no longer are there as many plants to anchor in the soil. In the northern Chinese province alone, 400 million are affected every year with an associated 54 billion yuan of annual economic loss due to grassland degradation. I am facing a new situation today: Xi province started sustainable agriculture and permaculture 40 years ago, while Huan province still uses conventional methods of cultivation. Animals grazing the fields extensively lead to desertification, the loss of carbon and nitrogen in the soil, and other problems. Permaculture was beneficial in Xi province, they re-built 10 inches of top soil in 10 years which is 6 times faster than the natural rate, which lead to a more diverse ecosystem and more biodiversity. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which province had a lesser food production due to agriculture practices?

A: Huan province
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Of the 94 naturally occurring elements, those with atomic numbers 1 through 82 each have at least one stable isotope (except for technetium, element 43 and promethium, element 61, which have no stable isotopes). Isotopes considered stable are those for which no radioactive decay has yet been observed. Elements with atomic numbers 83 through 94 are unstable to the point that radioactive decay of all isotopes can be detected. Some of these elements, notably bismuth (atomic number 83), thorium (atomic number 90), and uranium (atomic number 92), have one or more isotopes with half-lives long enough to survive as remnants of the explosive stellar nucleosynthesis that produced the heavy metals before the formation of our Solar System. At over 1.91019 years, over a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe, bismuth-209 (atomic number 83) has the longest known alpha decay half-life of any naturally occurring element, and is almost always considered on par with the 80 stable elements. The very heaviest elements (those beyond plutonium, element 94) undergo radioactive decay with half-lives so short that they are not found in nature and must be synthesized. I am facing a new situation today: David was studying for his chemistry exam. To understand the elements of the periodic table better he categorized them into three groups, cat A, cat B, and cat C. In cat A he placed all the elements with atomic numbers lower than 83. In cat B he put the elements with atomic numbers from 83 to 94. Finally, in cat C he placed the elements with atomic numbers over 94. He found it easier to see their differences after he categorized them. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which category would more likely show radioactive decay, cat A or cat B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
cat B
input question: I read this background article the other day: Recall that air pollution is due to chemical substances and particles released into the air mainly by human actions. When most people think of air pollution, they think of the pollution outdoors. But it is just as easy to have indoor air pollution. Your home or school classroom probably doesn't get much fresh air. Sealing up your home reduces heating and cooling costs. But this also causes air pollution to stay trapped indoors. And people today usually spend a majority of their time indoors. So exposure to indoor air pollution can become a significant health risk. I am facing a new situation today: James spent a lot of time indoors, and didn't get out much like Rob, his friend, who loved outdoors stuff. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend was exposed more to indoor pollution????
output answer: James
I read this background article the other day: Any unused energy in foodwhether it comes from carbohydrates, proteins, or lipidsis stored in the body as fat. An extra 3,500 Calories of energy results in the storage of almost half a kilogram (1 pound) of stored body fat. People who consistently consume more food energy then they need may become obese. Obesity occurs when the body mass index is 30.0 kg/m 2 or greater. Body mass index (BMI) is an estimate of the fat content of the body. It is calculated by dividing a person's weight (in kilograms) by the square of the person's height (in meters). Obesity increases the risk of health problems such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension. I am facing a new situation today: Two groups of adults were a part of a diet experiment. Group Brown ate 3500 extra calories a day for 3 months, while group Yellow, had a normal diet. Group Brown gained a lot of weight. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which group has a smaller chance of getting hypertension?
----
Answer: Yellow
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Predators play an important role in an ecosystem. For example, if they did not exist, then a single species could become dominant over others. Grazers on a grassland keep grass from growing out of control. Predators can be keystone species . These are species that can have a large effect on the balance of organisms in an ecosystem. For example, if all of the wolves are removed from a population, then the population of deer or rabbits may increase. If there are too many deer, then they may decrease the amount of plants or grasses in the ecosystem. Decreased levels of producers may then have a detrimental effect on the whole ecosystem. In this example, the wolves would be a keystone species. I am facing a new situation today: Dan and Joe studied animals for biology class. Joe had to study predator animals, while Dan studied herbivores and grazers. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which student learned less about rabbits?
****
[A]:
Dan