Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Rain dissolves fertilizer in the soil. Runoff carries it away. The fertilizer ends up in bodies of water, from ponds to oceans. Nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water. Since there is a lot of nitrogen, it causes algae to grow out of control. Pictured below is a pond covered with algae ( Figure below ). Algae use up carbon dioxide in the water. After the algae die, decomposers break down the dead tissue. The decomposers use up all the oxygen in the water. This creates a dead zone. A dead zone is an area in a body of water where nothing grows because there is too little oxygen. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ( Figure below ). The U.S. states outlined on the map have rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico. The rivers drain vast agricultural lands. The water carries fertilizer from these areas into the Gulf. I am facing a new situation today: Iceland and Ireland both used agriculture as a the main component of their economies. Ireland used lots of fertilizer and had big environmental problems as a result. Iceland does a lot of greenhouse agriculture using geothermal energy, so it is more protective towards the environment. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country caused more decomposers to break down dead algae?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Ireland
input question: I read this background article the other day: In many ways, bacterial metabolism provides traits that are useful for ecological stability and for human society. One example is that some bacteria have the ability to fix nitrogen gas using the enzyme nitrogenase. This environmentally important trait can be found in bacteria of most metabolic types listed above. This leads to the ecologically important processes of denitrification, sulfate reduction, and acetogenesis, respectively. Bacterial metabolic processes are also important in biological responses to pollution; for example, sulfate-reducing bacteria are largely responsible for the production of the highly toxic forms of mercury (methyl- and dimethylmercury) in the environment. Non-respiratory anaerobes use fermentation to generate energy and reducing power, secreting metabolic by-products (such as ethanol in brewing) as waste. Facultative anaerobes can switch between fermentation and different terminal electron acceptors depending on the environmental conditions in which they find themselves. I am facing a new situation today: Bob and Andy are two microbiologists. They are studying bacteria: Bob studies nitrogen fixating bacteria, while Andy studies non-respiratory and facultative anaerobes. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which researcher learned more about sulfate reduction????
output answer: Bob
I read this background article the other day: Extending the period of time over which a force acts in order to lessen the force is a common practice in design. Padding in shoes and seats allows the time to increase. The front of automobiles are designed to crumple in an accident; this increases the time the car takes to stop. Similarly, barrels of water or sand in front of abutments on the highway and airbags serve to slow down the stoppage time. These changes all serve to decrease the amount of force it takes to stop the momentum in a car crash, which consequently saves lives. I am facing a new situation today: Keith designs car seats. He noticed that some other car seats didn't have any padding. He marked it as case A. On the other hand, most of the seats he designed had padding. He marked it as case B. Keith needed to know pros and cons of both designs. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which case would more likely make products safer, case A or case B?
----
Answer: case B
Q: I read this background article the other day: Nearsightedness, or myopia, is the condition in which nearby objects are seen clearly, but distant objects appear blurry. The Figure below shows how it occurs. The eyeball is longer (from front to back) than normal. This causes images to be focused in front of the retina instead of on the retina. Myopia can be corrected with concave lenses. The lenses focus images farther back in the eye, so they fall on the retina instead of in front of it. I am facing a new situation today: John and Keith are two friends. They went to see an ophthalmologist for an eye cheek up. The doctor found that John had myopia, but Keith had normal eyes. He advised them according to his findings. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who would most likely not need concave lenses, John or Keith?
A: Keith
Question: I read this background article the other day: Predators play an important role in an ecosystem. For example, if they did not exist, then a single species could become dominant over others. Grazers on a grassland keep grass from growing out of control. Predators can be keystone species . These are species that can have a large effect on the balance of organisms in an ecosystem. For example, if all of the wolves are removed from a population, then the population of deer or rabbits may increase. If there are too many deer, then they may decrease the amount of plants or grasses in the ecosystem. Decreased levels of producers may then have a detrimental effect on the whole ecosystem. In this example, the wolves would be a keystone species. I am facing a new situation today: Mike is studying the predator prey relationship. He is specifically studying three species, species A, species B, and species C. Species A is a predator; species B is the prey; and species C is a plant species that species B lives on. Mike now needs to figure out how the predator prey relationship balance the ecosystem. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: If species A population increase, would species C population increase or decrease?
Answer: increase
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: Because of human activities, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Burning fossil fuels and has released great quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Cutting forests and clearing land has also increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because these activities reduce the number of autotrophic organisms that use up carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. In addition, clearing often involves burning, which releases carbon dioxide that was previously stored in autotrophs. I am facing a new situation today: When comparing village A from ten thousand years ago to village B from today, we reached the conclusion that today's villagers release much more carbon into the atmosphere by their activities. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which village cleared more land?
++++++++
Answer:
village B