input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: In exercises such as weight lifting, skeletal muscle contracts against a resisting force (see Figure below ). Using skeletal muscle in this way increases its size and strength. In exercises such as running, the cardiac muscle contracts faster and the heart pumps more blood. Using cardiac muscle in this way increases its strength and efficiency. Continued exercise is necessary to maintain bigger, stronger muscles. If you don't use a muscle, it will get smaller and weakerso use it or lose it. I am facing a new situation today: Danny started weight lifting two years ago, he wanted to be bigger. His brother Arnie preferred athletic competitions such as running, so he became a runner. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which brother didn't increase the efficiency of his cardiac muscle?
++++++++++
output: Danny
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Air pollution can also indirectly cause other health issues and even deaths. Air pollutants can cause an increase in cancer including lung cancer, eye problems, and other conditions. For example, using certain chemicals on farms, such as the insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and toxic PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), can cause cancer. Indoors, pollutants such as radon or asbestos can also increase your cancer risk. Lastly, air pollution can lead to heart disease, including heart attack and stroke. I am facing a new situation today: Michael recently moved to Xin Jiang, where there is a large amount of air pollutants due to the chemical manufacturing industry there. Kevin, on the other hand, recently moved to Toronto which just finished a several month long tree planting initiative that has drastically lowered the amount of air pollutants in the city. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who is more at risk for developing lung cancer?
++++++++
Answer: Michael
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Magnetism is due to the movement of electrons within atoms of matter. When electrons spin around the nucleus of an atom, it causes the atom to become a tiny magnet, with north and south poles and a magnetic field. In most materials, the electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atoms are arranged in such a way that the materials have no magnetic properties. Also, in most types of matter, the north and south poles of atoms point in all different directions, so overall the matter is not magnetic. Examples of nonmagnetic materials include wood, glass, plastic, paper, copper, and aluminum. These materials are not attracted to magnets and cannot become magnets. I am facing a new situation today: Andy has a refrigerator in his house with lots of magnets on it as decorations. One day while playing with and rearranging them he decided to see what other metals around his kitchen they would stick to. The things he had available were copper pots and pans, aluminum foil and some wooden spatulas. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will the material Andy's refrigerator is made of have the ability ot become magnetic, yes or no?

A: yes
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Almost all earthquakes occur at plate boundaries. All types of plate boundaries have earthquakes. Convection within the Earth causes the plates to move. As the plates move, stresses build. When the stresses build too much, the rocks break. The break releases the energy that was stored in the rocks. The sudden release of energy creates an earthquake. During an earthquake the rocks usually move several centimeters or rarely as much as a few meters. Elastic rebound theory describes how earthquakes occur ( Figure below ). I am facing a new situation today: Two brothers loved geology. Bob studied sedimentary rocks while Dan studied about earthquakes and their location. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which brother studied more about how rocks usually move a few meters?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Dan
input question: I read this background article the other day: Unfortunately, the layer of good ozone is being destroyed by air pollution. The chief culprits are chlorine and bromine gases. They are released in aerosol sprays, coolants, and other products. Loss of ozone has created an ozone hole over Antarctica. Ozone depletion results in higher levels of UV radiation reaching Earth. In humans, this increases skin cancers and eye cataracts. It also disturbs the nitrogen cycle, kills plankton, and disrupts ocean food webs. The total loss of the ozone layer would be devastating to most life. It's rate of loss has slowed with restrictions on pollutants, but it is still at risk. I am facing a new situation today: Big continent used more air polluting substances, while Small continent was very protective towards the environment. Big continent got a hole in its ozone layer as a consequence of their actions. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which continent used more aerosol sprays????
output answer: Big
input question: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two islands of identical size with similar ecosystems experienced different destinies. Caribu island, inhabited by more natives, hunted a few of the animal species there, contributing to the extinction of a few. People from Hiji island, were pescotarian, and hardly ever fished. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island exterminated less species of animals????
output answer:
Hiji