Q: I have a new situation: Mike has to learn more about the periodic table for his chemistry exam. To make things easier for him he chose two elements from the table, element A and element B. Element A has higher electronegativity and element B has lower eletronegativity. David found it easier to learn about elements by comparing their properties. But I can use this background: The general trend in electronegativity is that the value increases from left to right across a row in the periodic table and decreases down a column. The most electronegative element is fluorine, which has a value of 4.0. As discussed in the lesson "Trends in the Periodic Table," electronegativity increases across a row as the number of protons in the nucleus increases and therefore has a stronger pull. Electronegativity decreases down a column due to an increased effect of electron shielding in larger atoms. What is an answer for this question: Which element would have decreased effect of electron shielding, element A or element B?
A: element A
Question: I have a new situation: Ken and Jen are both attending an air show at a festival today. In each seat at the air show are a pair of electronic ear protectors. Ken puts his on prior to the show starting, but Jen forgets to wear hers and the show begins. But 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. What is an answer for this question: The sound waves from the jets will have a higher amplitude for who?
Answer: Jen
[Q]: I have a new situation: David wants to revisit the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin and Wallace. He is particularly interested in two species of deer, species A and species B. Species A has some helpful traits, but species B has some harmful traits. He is planning to write a paper on why some species are greater in number while others are smaller in number. But I can use this background: The theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed at about the same time by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, shown in Figure below , and was set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species . Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits, or traits that are not helpful or advantageous for survival to become more rare in a population of organisms. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits are more "fit" to survive in a particular environment and have "adapted" to the conditions of that environment. These individuals will have greater reproductive success than organisms less fit for survival in the environment. This will lead to an increase in the number of organisms with the advantageous trait(s) over time. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. What is an answer for this question: Which species would have greater reproductive success, species A or species B?
****
[A]: species A
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: When studying the kinetic-molecular theory, two teams of students did and experiment. Team A heated a can of soup over the fire without venting it first, team B heated a can of soup, but vented it first. But I can use this background: It would be very unadvisable to place a can of soup over a campfire without venting the can. As the can heats up, it may explode. The kinetic-molecular theory explains why. The air inside the rigid can of soup is given more kinetic energy by the heat coming from the campfire. The kinetic energy causes the air molecules to move faster and they impact the container walls more frequently and with more force. The increase in pressure inside may eventually exceed the strength of the can and it will explode. An additional factor is that the soup may begin boiling which will then aid even more gas and more pressure to the inside of the can. What is an answer for this question: Which team had a lower likelihood of their can exploding?
++++++++++
output: team B
Please answer this: I have a new situation: Sand mining in the north coastal region was stopped 20 years ago, but it still continues to this day in the south region. Both fishing communities there are still prosperous, but the southern one had a couple of bad years, with fish and other marine wildlife becoming more scarce. The southern beach had erosion problems as well. The northern beach recovered, and is suitable for tourism. But I can use this background: Sand mining is a direct cause of erosion, and impacts the local wildlife.[2] Various animals depend on sandy beaches for nesting clutches, and mining has led to the near extinction of gharials (a species of crocodile) in India. Disturbance of underwater and coastal sand causes turbidity in the water, which is harmful for organisms like coral that need sunlight. It can also destroy fisheries, financially harming their operators. Removal of physical coastal barriers, such as dunes, sometimes leads to flooding of beachside communities, and the destruction of picturesque beaches causes tourism to dissipate. Sand mining is regulated by law in many places, but is often done illegally.[3] Globally, it is a $70 billion industry, with sand selling at up to $90 per cubic yard.[4] What is an answer for this question: Which region has a higher fish mortality?
++++++++
Answer: southern
Question: I have a new situation: Two neighbors Paul and Dean studied toghether often. this week they got together and Paul started studying about the Gaia hypothesis, while Dean studied Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But 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. What is an answer for this question: Which person studied less about the stable state?
Answer:
Dean