Problem: I have a new situation: Two sister cities used different methods to produce electricity. London used fossil fuels, while Edmonton use entirely hydro power to generate energy. But I can use this background: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution, acid rain, and global warming. Fossil fuels are also limited and may eventually run out. Like fossil fuels, radioactive elements are limited. In fact, they are relatively rare, so they could run out sooner rather than later. On the other hand, nuclear fission does not release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuels. This is the major advantage of using nuclear fission as a source of energy. What is an answer for this question: Which city causes less air pollution?

A: Edmonton
Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Dr. Bill studies 2 groups of patients, group S composed of individuals with siclke-cell anemia, and group N with normal blood and no health issues. But I can use this background: 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. What is an answer for this question: Which group had people with fewer cells distorted by hemoglobin?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
group N
input question: I have a new situation: Bob works for the local electric power company. Part of is job involves checking the generators and transformers. His work schedule allows him to work on the generator tagged as gen A only on Mondays, and the transformer tagged as tran B only on Tuesdays. But I can use this background: Two important devices depend on electromagnetic induction: electric generators and electric transformers. Both devices play critical roles in producing and regulating the electric current we depend on in our daily lives. Electric generators use electromagnetic induction to change kinetic energy to electrical energy. They produce electricity in power plants. Electric transformers use electromagnetic induction to change the voltage of electric current. Some transformers increase voltage and other decrease voltage. What is an answer for this question: Which one would not change the voltage of electric current, gen A or tran B????
output answer: gen A
I have a new situation: Park city used fossil fuels to produce their electricity. They were less conscious about the environment than their neighbors from Lake city. People from Lake city used nuclear fission as an energy source. But I can use this background: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution, acid rain, and global warming. Fossil fuels are also limited and may eventually run out. Like fossil fuels, radioactive elements are limited. In fact, they are relatively rare, so they could run out sooner rather than later. On the other hand, nuclear fission does not release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuels. This is the major advantage of using nuclear fission as a source of energy. What is an answer for this question: Which city used fewer radioactive elements for their energy needs?
----
Answer: Park
Q: I have a new situation: Both Nicaragua and Costa Rica had large tract of pristine forests. They had one of the largest concentration of tropical species. In the 1980s Nicaragua started clearing up some of these forests. Instead, they have now vast tract of sugarcane production in that land. One can still visit Costa Rica where they kept those pristine forests intact. But I can use this background: Besides anthropogenic productivity of the land, the biodiversity of degraded land also declines, as previously mentioned.[12] With less biodiversity, this ecosystem is less adaptable to when disasters strike it[11][8] It has a smaller available food supply, in terms of plants, for animals, who then may die out or more likely may relocate. Proof of this decline is that presently 15-20% of Tibetan Plateau species are now considered endangered; and now because of this animal and plant absence, the soil quality of these degraded lands is very poor.[1] It does not hold the necessary nutrients, such as water, nitrogen, and carbon, essential to either supporting life or inviting life back to that land.[6] As a result of such carbon and nitrogen loss in the Tibetan Plateau, $8,033/ha and $13,315/ha were respectively lost in economic terms. Soils are further weakened by dust storms whose frequency increases because of degradation.[11][4] Erosion of soil becomes a bigger problem, since no longer are there as many plants to anchor in the soil. In the northern Chinese province alone, 400 million are affected every year with an associated 54 billion yuan of annual economic loss due to grassland degradation. What is an answer for this question: which country's ecosystem would most likely adapt better if a disaster strikes, Nicaragua or Costa Rica?
A: Costa Rica
[Q]: I have a new situation: The golf course at the Aurora Country Club cuts their grass to 2 1/2 inches high. The grass at the Augusta Country Club is cut to 4 inches. Sam likes more of a challenge when playing golf but Jack likes to play on turf where the ball rolls easier. But I can use this background: Just as there are good-quality grasses for putting greens, there are good-quality grasses for the fairway and rough. The quality of grass influences the roll of the ball as well as the ability of the player to "take a divot" (effectively, the ability to hit down into the ball, hitting the ball first, then hitting the turf and removing a portion of it as the club continues its arc). Fairways on prestigious tours, like the PGA Tour, are cut low. Mowing heights influence the play of the course. For example, the grass heights at U.S. Open events are alternated from one hole to the next in order to make the course more difficult. One example of this is the infamous roughs at U.S. Opens, which are often 3 to 5 inches high, depending on how close to the fairway or green the section of grass will be. This makes it difficult for a player to recover after a bad shot. What is an answer for this question: Which Country Club would Jack enjoy playing golf at less, Aurora or Augusta?
****
[A]:
Augusta