I read this background article the other day: There is a large area of low ozone concentration or "ozone hole" over Antarctica. This hole covers almost the whole continent and was at its largest in September 2008, when the longest lasting hole on record remained until the end of December. The hole was detected by scientists in 1985 and has tended to increase over the years of observation. The ozone hole is attributed to the emission of chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs into the atmosphere, which decompose the ozone into other gases.Some scientific studies suggest that ozone depletion may have a dominant role in governing climatic change in Antarctica (and a wider area of the Southern Hemisphere). Ozone absorbs large amounts of ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion over Antarctica can cause a cooling of around 6 C in the local stratosphere. This cooling has the effect of intensifying the westerly winds which flow around the continent (the polar vortex) and thus prevents outflow of the cold air near the South Pole. As a result, the continental mass of the East Antarctic ice sheet is held at lower temperatures, and the peripheral areas of Antarctica, especially the Antarctic Peninsula, are subject to higher temperatures, which promote accelerated melting. Models also suggest that the ozone depletion/enhanced polar vortex effect also accounts for the recent increase in sea ice just offshore of the continent. I am facing a new situation today: Blimpton and Jarmel are two neighboring planets in the Harshlan galaxy. Aliens are currently studying the two planets to see if either of them are suitable for habitation. While studying the planets, they discover that both planets have the same type of atmosphere. However, there is one key difference. The difference is that the current species of animals on Blimpton emit much more chlorofluorocarbons than Jarmel's animals do. The aliens take note of this so they can report back to their bosses on what they have found. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Does more or less radiation get through Blimpton's stratosphere?
Ans: more

I read this background article the other day: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution that harms the health of living things. The air pollution also causes acid rain and contributes to global warming. In addition, fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, so if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The main advantage of nuclear energy is that it doesn't release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels. On the other other hand, radioactive elements are nonrenewable like fossil fuels and could eventually be used up. I am facing a new situation today: There are two cities, Chien and Marisol, in France that are leaders in the amount of wine they export to the rest of the world. Although they both export the same amount of wine, they use different sources of power to generate their electricity. Chien uses coal to power the city and Marisol uses nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The citizens of both cities are voting on whether to continue their current method of electricity generation. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city has less air pollution?
Ans: Marisol

I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: 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. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which case the scientist would have more likely committed a fraud, case A or case B?
Ans: case B

I read this background article the other day: Most chemical reactions within organisms would be impossible under the normal conditions within cell. For example, the body temperature of most organisms is too low for reactions to occur quickly enough to carry out life processes. Reactants may also be present in such low concentrations that it is unlikely they will meet and collide. Therefore, the rate of most biochemical reactions must be increased by a catalyst. A catalyst is a chemical that speeds up chemical reactions. In organisms, catalysts are called enzymes . I am facing a new situation today: Mike is a biochemist, working for a science lab. Today, he has two organisms to investigate, organism A and organism B. He notices that organism A has enzymes, but organism B lacks enzymes. He needs to figure out how these conditions would affect the organisms. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which organism would less likely be able to carry out life processes, organism A or organism B?
Ans: organism B