input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Generally, nearsightedness first occurs in school-age children. There is some evidence that myopia is inherited. If one or both of your parents need glasses, there is an increased chance that you will too. Individuals who spend a lot of time reading, working or playing at a computer, or doing other close visual work may also be more likely to develop nearsightedness. Because the eye continues to grow during childhood, myopia typically progresses until about age 20. However, nearsightedness may also develop in adults due to visual stress or health conditions such as diabetes. A common sign of nearsightedness is difficulty seeing distant objects like a movie screen or the TV, or the whiteboard or chalkboard in school. I am facing a new situation today: David is a doctor who works for the public health department. After analyzing health data for his city, he found twenty percent of the population have myopia. He categorized them as group A. Another eighty percent didn't have myopia. He put them in group B. He now needs to devise a plan on how to tackle myopia in his city. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which group would less likely engage in visually intensive works, group A or group B?
++++++++++
output: group B
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: The benefits provided by no-tillage to predators may lead to larger predator populations, which is a good way to control pests (biological control), but also can facilitate predation of the crop itself. In corn crops, for instance, predation by caterpillars can be higher in no-till than in conventional tillage fields.In places with rigorous winter, untilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates. Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the prior year's crops lying on the surface of untilled fields can provide a favorable environment to pathogens, helping to increase the risk of transmitting diseases to the future crop. And because no-till farming provides good environment for pathogens, insects and weeds, it can lead farmers to a more intensive use of chemicals for pest control. Other disadvantages of no-till include underground rot, low soil temperatures and high moisture.Based on the balance of these factors, and because each farm has different problems, agroecologists will not attest that only no-till or complete tillage is the right way of farming. Yet, these are not the only possible choices regarding soil preparation, since there are intermediate practices such as strip-till, mulch-till and ridge-till, all of them just as no-till categorized as conservation tillage. Agroecologists, then, will evaluate the need of different practices for the contexts in which each farm is inserted. I am facing a new situation today: Two farmers, Tom and Brad, applied different farming methods. Tom tilled his land, while Brad applied the no-till gardening method. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farmer had a soil that took less to dry in spring?
++++++++
Answer: Tom
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Increased solar ultraviolet radiation resulting from the Antarctic ozone hole has reduced marine primary productivity (phytoplankton) by as much as 15% and has started damaging the DNA of some fish. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, especially the landing of an estimated five to six times more Patagonian toothfish than the regulated fishery, likely affects the sustainability of the stock. Long-line fishing for toothfish causes a high incidence of seabird mortality. I am facing a new situation today: Bob was studying about Earth's atmosphere. He found that increased depletion of Earth's ozone layer is a relatively new phenomenon. Most scientists would blame the CFC gases for the depletion of ozone layer. In the early twentieth century ozone layer was relatively stable. Bob labeled that time as time A. But in the late twentieth century situation changed with seasonal depletion of ozone layer. He labeled that time as time B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which time less fish DNA would be damaged, time A or time B?

A: time A
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: When you add sugar to a cold drink, you may stir it to help the sugar dissolve. If you don't stir, the sugar may eventually dissolve, but it will take much longer. Stirring is one of several factors that affect how fast a solute dissolves in a solvent. Temperature is another factor. A solid solute dissolves faster at a higher temperature. For example, sugar dissolves faster in hot tea than in ice tea. A third factor that affects the rate of dissolving is the surface area of the solute. For example, if you put granulated sugar in a glass of ice tea, it will dissolve more quickly than the same amount of sugar in a cube. That's because granulated sugar has much more surface area than a cube of sugar. You can see videos of all three factors at these URLs I am facing a new situation today: While drinking coffee John added some sugar and cream in his coffee. He started to ponder how solutes dissolve in a solvent. To that end, he added solutes in a solvent in six different conditions, case A, case B, case C, case D, case E, and case F. In case A he stirred the solution, but in case B he didn't stir the the solution. In case C he heat the solution up, but in case D he cooled the solution down. In case E he used finely ground solute, but in case F he used cubes of solute. 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 solute would dissolve faster, case C or case D?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
case C
input question: I read this background article the other day: Generally, nearsightedness first occurs in school-age children. There is some evidence that myopia is inherited. If one or both of your parents need glasses, there is an increased chance that you will too. Individuals who spend a lot of time reading, working or playing at a computer, or doing other close visual work may also be more likely to develop nearsightedness. Because the eye continues to grow during childhood, myopia typically progresses until about age 20. However, nearsightedness may also develop in adults due to visual stress or health conditions such as diabetes. A common sign of nearsightedness is difficulty seeing distant objects like a movie screen or the TV, or the whiteboard or chalkboard in school. I am facing a new situation today: Two elementary school classmates, Clarence and Molly, are sitting in the back row of the classroom while the teacher lectures. They are both paying attention and reading what the teacher is writing on the board, but Molly is finding it difficult to read what is on the board since it appears blurry. She asks Clarence if the chalkboard looks blurry and he says that it looks clear to him. Molly will ask her mom about it when she gets home from school today. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Are Clarence's parents more or less likely than Molly's parents to wear glasses????
output answer:
less