Question: I can use this background: Soon after the original study was published, other researchers tried to replicate the research. However, it could not be replicated. No other studies could find a link between the vaccine and autism. As a result, scientists became convinced that the original results were incorrect. Eventually, investigators determined that the original study was a fraud. They learned that its author had received a large amount of money to find evidence that the vaccine causes autism, so he faked his research results. If other scientists had not tried to replicate the research, the truth might never have come out. You can read more about this case at the URL below. Now, I have a new situation: John works for the NSF. He has two research proposals in front of him, case A and case B. Both are looking for further funding. Case A research has been replicated by other researchers, but case B research could not be replicated by others. He needs to decide which research should get further funding. Answer this question please: For which reasearch John should not offer funding, case A or case B?
Answer: case B

Question: I can use this background: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. Now, I have a new situation: John studies how chemicals affect environment. He traveled to the Amish country to see their traditional ways of farming. He noticed they don't use any fertilizers or pesticides. He labeled this part of the study as case A. Then he visited a modern farming facility where they use tons of fertilizers and pesticides. He labeled this part of the study as case B. Answer this question please: Which place might see dead zones in its lakes, case A or case B?
Answer: case B

Question: I can use this background: The Laffer curve depicts the amount of government revenue as a function of the rate of taxation. It shows that for a tax rate above a certain critical rate, government revenue starts decreasing as the tax rate rises, as a consequence of a decline in labour supply. This theory supports that, if the tax rate is above that critical point, a decrease in the tax rate should imply a rise in labour supply that in turn would lead to an increase in government revenue. Now, I have a new situation: The country of Hinland reduced taxation hoping it would mean more money for government spending. On the other hand, Silvania, a southern country increased taxation hoping they would increase collection amounts. The problem was that Silvanian people increased taxation above the critical rate. Answer this question please: Which country experienced an increase in government revenue?
Answer:
Hinland