[Q]: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: Two friends had a sleepover. They spent most of the time online looking up stuff and talking about it. Bill looked up the Gaia hypothesis, while Frank read about the Flat Earth theory. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend read less about Earth achieving homeostasis?
****
[A]: Frank
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Communication is any way that animals share information. Many animals live in social groups. For these animals, being able to communicate is essential. Communicating increases the ability of group members to cooperate and avoid conflict. Communication may help animals work together to find food and defend themselves from predators. It also helps them find mates and care for their offspring. In addition, communication helps adult animals teach the next generation learned behaviors. Therefore, communication generally improves the chances of animals surviving and reproducing. I am facing a new situation today: There are 2 groups of prairie dogs that have been released into the wild. Group A was domesticated and therefor never learned to communicate danger to each other. Group B was rescued from a bad storm but lived in the wild for years before they were captured then released. One day the two groups encountered a lion that was trying to eat them. One of the members of group B made a peculiar high pitched sound, alerting the rest of it's members that there was something dangerous nearby and they all went inside their burrow and hid. The member of group A saw the lion and simply ran as fast as it could without altering any of the other members. Unfortunately one of group A's members was caught and eaten. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will a domesticated group fair better or worse in the wild when compared to a wild group?
++++++++++
output: worse
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Most ants are generalist predators, scavengers, and indirect herbivores, but a few have evolved specialised ways of obtaining nutrition. It is believed that many ant species that engage in indirect herbivory rely on specialized symbiosis with their gut microbes to upgrade the nutritional value of the food they collect and allow them to survive in nitrogen poor regions, such as rainforest canopies. Leafcutter ants (Atta and Acromyrmex) feed exclusively on a fungus that grows only within their colonies. They continually collect leaves which are taken to the colony, cut into tiny pieces and placed in fungal gardens. Ergates specialise in related tasks according to their sizes. The largest ants cut stalks, smaller workers chew the leaves and the smallest tend the fungus. Leafcutter ants are sensitive enough to recognise the reaction of the fungus to different plant material, apparently detecting chemical signals from the fungus. If a particular type of leaf is found to be toxic to the fungus, the colony will no longer collect it. The ants feed on structures produced by the fungi called gongylidia. Symbiotic bacteria on the exterior surface of the ants produce antibiotics that kill bacteria introduced into the nest that may harm the fungi. I am facing a new situation today: Bill and Chris are passionate entomologists. Bill knows everything there is to know about most ants except the Leafcutter ants. Chris studied Leafcutter ants extensively and exclusively for years now. They are good friends and exchange ideas often over a pint of beer. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend studied more about indirect herbivore ants?
++++++++
Answer: Bill
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided." I am facing a new situation today: Tom and Jerry are two friends who have always had competitions with one another throughout their whole lives. Yesterday, they just finished their most unique competition so far. Each man was given a room to sit in that had several highly radioactive objects in it. The challenge was to see who would stay in the chamber longer. Tom didn't stay in his room for very long, but Jerry felt determined to win and stayed in his chamber almost the entire day. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Is Tom's chance of dying within the next year higher or lower than Jerry's?

A: lower
Problem: I read this background article the other day: When humans dig up and use fossil fuels, we have an impact on the carbon cycle ( Figure below ). This carbon is not recycled until it is used by humans. The burning of fossil fuels releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is used by photosynthesis. So, there is more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere than is coming out of it. Carbon dioxide is known as a greenhouse gas , since it lets in light energy but does not let heat escape, much like the panes of a greenhouse. The increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is contributing to a global rise in Earth's temperature, known as global warming or global climate change. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring countries France and Spain were competing for economical supremacy in Europe. Spain dug up fossil fuels and used it as an energy source. France used alternative sources of energy. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country had a greater impact on the carbon cycle?

A:
Spain