Q: I read this background article the other day: The primary role of red blood cells in the circulatory system is to transport oxygen to the tissues. The actual carrier of oxygen molecules is the protein hemoglobin, which binds to the oxygen and moves it throughout the body, releasing it in areas where the concentration of dissolved oxygen is low. A certain mutation in the gene for hemoglobin causes a slight change in the structure of this crucial protein, resulting in a disease called sickle-cell anemia. For people with this mutation, the hemoglobin produced by their red blood cells has a tendency to clump together, distorting the shape of the red blood cells and giving rise to the crescent-shaped cells seen above. By understanding the changes in structure that are the underlying cause of this disease, we have developed various ways to treat and manage this illness. I am facing a new situation today: Dan had two children: Karen which had sickle-cell anemia, and his son Bob, which was healthy. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which child has a hemoglobin that gives rise to the crescent-shaped cells?
A: Karen

Q: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: 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. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which case predator D's trophic level would decrease, case A or case B?
A: case A

Q: I read this background article the other day: No doubt you already have a good idea of what temperature is. You might say that it's how warm or cool something feels. In physics, temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles of matter. When particles of matter move more quickly, they have more kinetic energy, so their temperature is higher. With a higher temperature, matter feels warmer. When particles move more slowly, they have less kinetic energy on average, so their temperature is lower. With a lower temperature, matter feels cooler. I am facing a new situation today: David is trying to understand temperature and the science behind it. He took two objects, object A and object B, to his physics professor. Object A had higher temperature, but object B had lower temperature. His physics professor explained him why one object's temperature was higher while other object's temperature was lower. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would objcet A have more or less average kinetic energy than object B?
A: more

Q: 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: Bob is looking at a map with Mercator projection to help him with his geography class. He noticed that Ecuador is within fifteen degrees north or south of the equator, but Norway is farther north of the equator. Bob starts to see how a country's location on a map affects how they look. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would Equador be closer to or further from its true dimentions?
A:
closer