input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Harry and Kim studied ancient humans. Kim studied a 15000 year-old settlement, before humans invented agriculture, while Harry studied a 5000 year-old village. But I can use this background: Human beings invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago. This provided a bigger, more dependable food supply. It also allowed people to settle down in villages and cities for the first time. Birth rates went up because there was more food and settled life had other advantages. Death rates also rose because of crowded living conditions and diseases that spread from domestic animals. Because the higher birth rates were matched by higher death rates, the human population continued to grow very slowly. What is an answer for this question: Which student studied about a village that had a higher birth rate?
++++++++++
output: Harry

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Two neighboring counties used different agricultural methods on their farm fields. Cook county used many fertilizers and pesticides, while Dane county used only organic methods and no pesticides. As a result, the waters in Dane county were cleaner. But 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. What is an answer for this question: Which county contaminated fewer water wells?
++++++++++
output: Dane

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: John is a chemical engineer with a pharmaceutical company. He is trying to develop a drug that can be absorbed by the system in different rates. To that end, he conducted two experiments. In one case, he used lower concentrations of reactants, he called it case A. Then he used the same reactants in a higher concentration. He called it case B. But I can use this background: Collision theory tells us that molecules need to collide in order for a reaction to take place. All else being equal, anything that increases the frequency of collisions would also increase the rate of reaction. One way to do this is to increase the concentrations of one or more of the reactants. Using a real world example, a busy freeway will experience much more frequent car collisions than a fairly empty neighborhood street. Similarly, forcing more randomly moving molecules into the same amount of space will cause an increased number of collisions over a given length of time, providing the reactants with more opportunities to transform into products. What is an answer for this question: Which case would have higher rate of reaction, case A or case B?
++++++++++
output: case B

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Jessica and Milly are two politicians currently in the running for governor of their city. They are in the process of having a debate that is being broadcast on local television. Mike, an avid environmentalist who is trying to decide who to vote for, has been watching the entire debate. He feels the most important issue when voting is saving the planet and the animals on it. The question that was just asked by the moderator was "what do you think should be done with the Earth's atmosphere?" Jessica responds that she thinks we should emit more anthropogenic gases. She believes that will lead to the best outcome for the world. Milly states that we need to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. But I can use this background: The dangers of global warming are being increasingly studied by a wide global consortium of scientists. These scientists are increasingly concerned about the potential long-term effects of global warming on our natural environment and on the planet. Of particular concern is how climate change and global warming caused by anthropogenic, or human-made releases of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, can act interactively, and have adverse effects upon the planet, its natural environment and humans' existence. It is clear the planet is warming, and warming rapidly. This is due to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by greenhouse gases, which trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere because of their more complex molecular structure which allows them to vibrate and in turn trap heat and release it back towards the Earth. This warming is also responsible for the extinction of natural habitats, which in turn leads to a reduction in wildlife population.The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the group of the leading climate scientists in the world) concluded that the earth will warm anywhere from 2.7 to almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 6 degrees Celsius) between 1990 and 2100. What is an answer for this question: Will Jessica's plan lead to an increase or decrease in Earth's temperature?
++++++++++
output:
increase