Please answer this: I can use this background: Clouds on Earth are made of water vapor. Venus's clouds are a lot less pleasant. They are made of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and large amounts of corrosive sulfuric acid! The atmosphere of Venus is so thick that the pressure on the surface of Venus is very high. In fact, it is 90 times greater than the pressure at Earth's surface! The thick atmosphere causes a strong greenhouse effect. As a result, Venus is the hottest planet. Even though it is farther from the Sun, Venus is much hotter even than Mercury. Temperatures at the surface reach 465C (860F). That's hot enough to melt lead! Now, I have a new situation: Two groups of children studied about some of the planets from our Solar system and their atmospheres. Group E studied about Earth, while group V studied about the planet Venus. Answer this question please: Which group studied less about thick atmospheres causing a strong greenhouse effect?
++++++++
Answer: Group E
Problem: I can use this background: The particles of soup have greater average kinetic energy than the particles of water in the tub, explaining why the soup has a higher temperature. However, the mass of the water in the tub is much greater than the mass of the soup in the pot. This means that there are many more particles of water than soup. All those moving particles give the water in the tub greater total kinetic energy, even though their average kinetic energy is less. Therefore, the water in the tub has greater thermal energy than the soup. To compare the thermal energy of some other materials, go to the following URL and click on the interactive animation "Temperature and Thermal Energy." Now, I have a new situation: Alexander is conducting reactions in his college chemistry class. In his first reaction, reaction A, he uses a large amount of reactants. In his second reaction, reaction B, he uses a much smaller amount of reactants compared to reaction A. As the reactions are proceeding, he measures that reactants in reaction A have low average kinetic energy. At the same time, reactants in reaction B have high average kinetic energy. Answer this question please: Which reaction has a lower temperature?

A: reaction A
Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: Middle adulthood lasts from the mid-30s to the mid-60s. During this stage of life, many people raise a family and strive to attain career goals. They start showing physical signs of aging, such as wrinkles and gray hair. Typically, vision, strength and reaction time start declining. Diseases such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular or heart disease, and cancer are often diagnosed during this stage of life. These diseases are also the chief causes of death in middle adulthood. Now, I have a new situation: David works for the government as a statistician. He had to produce a report for the coming annual meeting. This year he is thinking about a report with some lifestyle suggestions for middle adulthood population. To make it easier to understand the needs of middle adulthood population he would compare it with a group who are in their twenties. He labeled the first group as group A; and the latter group as group B. Answer this question please: Would group A have faster or slower reaction time than group B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
slower
input question: 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. Now, I have a new situation: Jennifer is currently looking for a new city to move to since she is looking to change her life and just do something different. Jennifer is a strong environmentalist and doesn't want to move to a city that contributes a lot to climate change since she feels it's every person's duty to take care of the Earth. She looks online and finds out about two cities in Minnesota that are several hundred miles apart. Jamestown has a very famous water park and uses coal to generate the city's electricity. Dapperton, the other city she is considering, has a neat hobby shop that Jennifer likes and the city uses nuclear power for its electricity needs. Answer this question please: Which city is more likely to run out of the material used to generate electricity first????
output answer: Dapperton
I can use this background: Law enforcement officers are often unfamiliar with information technology, and so lack the skills and interest in pursuing attackers. There are also budgetary constraints. It has been argued that the high cost of technology, such as DNA testing, and improved forensics mean less money for other kinds of law enforcement, so the overall rate of criminals not getting dealt with goes up as the cost of the technology increases. In addition, the identification of attackers across a network may require logs from various points in the network and in many countries, the release of these records to law enforcement (with the exception of being voluntarily surrendered by a network administrator or a system administrator) requires a search warrant and, depending on the circumstances, the legal proceedings required can be drawn out to the point where the records are either regularly destroyed, or the information is no longer relevant. Now, I have a new situation: Two neighboring police Departments took different approaches to fighting crime, Greenville P.D. did not invest in DNA testing, improved forensics, and information technology, while Grayville took extensive measures of that nature. Answer this question please: Which P.D. took a less comprehensive approach in fighting crime?
----
Answer: Greenville
Q: I can use this background: It would be very unadvisable to place a can of soup over a campfire without venting the can. As the can heats up, it may explode. The kinetic-molecular theory explains why. The air inside the rigid can of soup is given more kinetic energy by the heat coming from the campfire. The kinetic energy causes the air molecules to move faster and they impact the container walls more frequently and with more force. The increase in pressure inside may eventually exceed the strength of the can and it will explode. An additional factor is that the soup may begin boiling which will then aid even more gas and more pressure to the inside of the can. Now, I have a new situation: A team of hikers split into two groups. Group Jones hiked north and camped there overnight. Group George went east. Both groups made campfires and heated cans of soups. Group Jones didn't make holes in the cans, so the cans exploded. The others heated their soup cans the right way, by venting them first. Answer this question please: Which group observed their soups boiling?
A:
George