I read this background article the other day: Hemophilia is the name of a group of hereditary diseases that affect the body's ability to control blood clotting. Hemophilia is caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood. Clotting factors are normally released by platelets. Since people with hemophilia cannot produce clots, any cut can put a person at risk of bleeding to death. The risk of internal bleeding is also increased in hemophilia, especially into muscles and joints. This disease affected the royal families of Europe. I am facing a new situation today: Two cousins went for a blood test. Tim found out he had hemophilia, while John was normal. Tim had to start taking medication. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which cousin didn't have a hereditary disease?
----
Answer: John
Q: I read this background article the other day: New species develop naturally through the process of natural selection . Due to natural selection, organisms with traits that better enable them to adapt to their environment will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers. Natural selection causes beneficial heritable traits to become more common in a population and unfavorable heritable traits to become less common. For example, a giraffe's neck is beneficial because it allows the giraffe to reach leaves high in trees. Natural selection caused this beneficial trait to become more common than short necks. I am facing a new situation today: Greg and Frank were two friends that studied natural sciences. One day, Greg decided to start reading about natural selection. His friend Frank decided to read more about populations that displayed natural selection more sparingly. They both learned lots of new interesting facts. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend learned more about animals that reproduce in greater numbers?
A: Greg
Question: I read this background article the other day: In nature, when the population size is small, there is usually plenty of food and other resources for each individual. When there is plenty of food and other resources, organisms can easily reproduce, so the birth rate is high. As the population increases, the food supply, or the supply of another necessary resource, may decrease. When necessary resources, such as food, decrease, some individuals will die. Overall, the population cannot reproduce at the same rate, so the birth rates drop. This will cause the population growth rate to decrease. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring countries of similar size and wealth of resources had different sized population. Deerland had a small population, while Bearland had a large population. Both peoples lived mostly off the land. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country will experience fewer deaths?
Answer: Deerland
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Allergy symptoms can range from mild to severe. Mild symptoms might include itchy eyes, sneezing, and a runny nose. Severe symptoms can cause difficulty breathing, which may be life threatening. Keep in mind that it is the immune system and not the allergen that causes the allergy symptoms. Allergy symptoms can be treated with medications such as antihistamines. Severe allergic reactions may require an injection of the hormone epinephrine. These treatments lessen or counter the immune system's response. I am facing a new situation today: Bill and Chad both displayed allergic reactions. Bill had mild symptoms, while Chad displayed severe allergic reactions and was rushed to the hospital. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person displayed fewer symptoms such as itchy eyes?
****
[A]: Chad
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Using longitudinal data from over 100 countries, Diener and his colleagues showed that rich countries are in general happier than poor countries (Diener, Tay, & Oishi, 2013).[17] Also, life satisfaction for most countries goes up as they become wealthier over time. Diener identified three factors that influence the relationship between income and SWB. Namely, rising income most likely results in higher SWB when it leads to greater optimism, financial satisfaction and household material prosperity among citizens. Furthermore, Diener and his colleagues investigated the relationship between income and different elements of SWB. They illustrated that income has stronger influence on people's evaluation of their lives than the positive or negative emotions they experience over time (Diener, Kahneman, Tov, & Arora, 2010).[18] The study points to the necessity to evaluate different elements of SWB separately instead of treating happiness as a single entity. I am facing a new situation today: Over the years, the town of Euphoria has grown more successful and wealthier than anyone ever thought. As the wealth has increased and people have acquired more material possessions, their outlook on life has become more positive and it has been noted that the citizens have a lower incidence of depression. The town of Zenphora, on the other hand, has taken a downward financial turn over the past 50 years. The citizens have had to sell their worldly goods just to make ends meet and many do not have a good feeling about what their future holds. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Due to financial success, has the SWB in Euphoria increased or decreased?
++++++++++
output: increased
I read this background article the other day: Ammonia toxicity is believed to be a cause of otherwise unexplained losses in fish hatcheries. Excess ammonia may accumulate and cause alteration of metabolism or increases in the body pH of the exposed organism. Tolerance varies among fish species. At lower concentrations, around 0.05 mg/L, un-ionised ammonia is harmful to fish species and can result in poor growth and feed conversion rates, reduced fecundity and fertility and increase stress and susceptibility to bacterial infections and diseases. Exposed to excess ammonia, fish may suffer loss of equilibrium, hyper-excitability, increased respiratory activity and oxygen uptake and increased heart rate. At concentrations exceeding 2.0 mg/L, ammonia causes gill and tissue damage, extreme lethargy, convulsions, coma, and death. Experiments have shown that the lethal concentration for a variety of fish species ranges from 0.2 to 2.0 mg/l.During winter, when reduced feeds are administered to aquaculture stock, ammonia levels can be higher. Lower ambient temperatures reduce the rate of algal photosynthesis so less ammonia is removed by any algae present. Within an aquaculture environment, especially at large scale, there is no fast-acting remedy to elevated ammonia levels. Prevention rather than correction is recommended to reduce harm to farmed fish and in open water systems, the surrounding environment. I am facing a new situation today: Woodland had two nearby fish hatcheries. Pine hatchery had great result the past few years because they found a way to reduce ammonia water toxicity. Spruce hatchery has big ammonia toxicity problems and hadn't find a way to remediate them. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which hatchery found more fish with poor growth?
----
Answer:
Spruce