Q: I can use this background: A wood-decay fungus is any species of fungus that digests moist wood, causing it to rot. Some species of wood-decay fungi attack dead wood, such as brown rot, and some, such as Armillaria (honey fungus), are parasitic and colonize living trees. Excessive moisture above the fibre saturation point in wood is required for fungal colonization and proliferation.[1] Fungi that not only grow on wood but permeate its fibrous structure and actually cause decay, are called lignicolous fungi. In nature, this process causes the breakdown of complex molecules and leads to the return of nutrients to the soil.[2] Various lignicolous fungi consume wood in various ways; for example, some attack the carbohydrates in wood and some others decay lignin. The rate of decay of wooden materials in various climates can be estimated by empirical models.[3] Now, I have a new situation: Bob is a botanist. His interest is in different kinds of fungi. He went to Brazil last month to study fungi in the Amazon rain forest. First day he searched for fungi in a location with excessive moisture. Second day he searched for fungi in a location with no moisture. In all his search he found two specimens of fungi. Specimen A is a brown rot fungus, and specimen B is a honey fungus. Answer this question please: Which specimen of fungus would most likely live on living trees, specimen A or specimen B?
A: specimen B
Question: I can use this background: The dangers of global warming are being increasingly studied by a wide global consortium of scientists. These scientists are increasingly concerned about the potential long-term effects of global warming on our natural environment and on the planet. Of particular concern is how climate change and global warming caused by anthropogenic, or human-made releases of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, can act interactively, and have adverse effects upon the planet, its natural environment and humans' existence. It is clear the planet is warming, and warming rapidly. This is due to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by greenhouse gases, which trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere because of their more complex molecular structure which allows them to vibrate and in turn trap heat and release it back towards the Earth. This warming is also responsible for the extinction of natural habitats, which in turn leads to a reduction in wildlife population.The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the group of the leading climate scientists in the world) concluded that the earth will warm anywhere from 2.7 to almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 6 degrees Celsius) between 1990 and 2100. Now, I have a new situation: Jessica and Milly are two politicians currently in the running for governor of their city. They are in the process of having a debate that is being broadcast on local television. Mike, an avid environmentalist who is trying to decide who to vote for, has been watching the entire debate. He feels the most important issue when voting is saving the planet and the animals on it. The question that was just asked by the moderator was "what do you think should be done with the Earth's atmosphere?" Jessica responds that she thinks we should emit more anthropogenic gases. She believes that will lead to the best outcome for the world. Milly states that we need to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. Answer this question please: Will Milly's plan lead to an increase or decrease in Earth's temperature?
Answer: decrease
[Q]: I can use this background: Apex predators affect prey species' population dynamics and populations of other predators, both in aquatic and in terrestrial ecosystems. Non-native predatory fish, for instance, have sometimes devastated formerly dominant predators. A lake manipulation study found that when the non-native smallmouth bass was removed, lake trout, the suppressed native apex predator, diversified its prey selection and increased its trophic level. As a terrestrial example, the badger, an apex predator, predates on and also competes with the hedgehog, a mesopredator, for food such as insects, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and ground-nesting bird's eggs. Removal of badgers (in a trial investigating bovine tuberculosis) caused hedgehog densities to more than double. Predators that exert a top-down control on organisms in their community are often considered keystone species. Humans are not considered apex predators because their diets are typically diverse, although human trophic levels increase with consumption of meat. Now, I have a new situation: Rob is a biologist who is interested in native species conservation. To that end, he conducted two studies, case A and case B. In case A, a non native apex predator C was introduced in formerly apex predator D's habitat. In case B, same non native apex predator C was removed from formerly apex predator D's habitat. He now needs to analyze the results of these studies. Answer this question please: Would predator D's trophic level increase or decrease in case B than in case A?
****
[A]: increase
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That's because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. Now, I have a new situation: Two sister cities had different environments. Shanghai had big problems with air pollution while Berna took very good care of the surrounding environment and air quality. Answer this question please: Which city had air that was not harmful to other living things?
++++++++++
output: Berna
Question: I can use this background: Electronic ear protectors work differently. They identify high-amplitude sound waves and send sound waves through them in the opposite direction. This causes destructive interference with the waves, which reduces their amplitude to zero or nearly zero. This changes even the loudest sounds to just a soft hiss. Sounds that people need to hear, such as the voices of co-workers, are not interfered with in this way and may be amplified instead so they can be heard more clearly. This type of hearing protector is recommended for higher noise levels and situations where it's important to be able to hear lower-decibel sounds. Now, I have a new situation: Carson is a construction worker that operates a jack hammer on the construction site for a new building. The jack hammer is often incredibly loud and generates a high amount of noise. Carson wants to protect himself from this noise, but he also needs to be able to hear the orders given to him by his boss on the site. Answer this question please: Would Carson still be able to hear his boss if he used electronic ear protectors, yes or no?
Answer:
yes