Please answer this: I can use this background: Medical research on the effects of excessive light on the human body suggests that a variety of adverse health effects may be caused by light pollution or excessive light exposure, and some lighting design textbooks[33] use human health as an explicit criterion for proper interior lighting. Health effects of over-illumination or improper spectral composition of light may include: increased headache incidence, worker fatigue, medically defined stress, decrease in sexual function and increase in anxiety.[34][35][36][37] Likewise, animal models have been studied demonstrating unavoidable light to produce adverse effect on mood and anxiety.[38] For those who need to be awake at night, light at night also has an acute effect on alertness and mood.[39] Now, I have a new situation: Two friends, John and Abe, worked at the same warehouse. John was exposed to very strong light all the time, while Abe worked in a more normal environment. John started experiencing health problems after a while. Answer this question please: Which worker was influenced less by improper spectral composition, John or Abe?
++++++++
Answer: Abe
Problem: 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. Now, 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. Answer this question please: Which county contaminated fewer water wells?

A: Dane
Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: Air pollution can also indirectly cause other health issues and even deaths. Air pollutants can cause an increase in cancer including lung cancer, eye problems, and other conditions. For example, using certain chemicals on farms, such as the insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and toxic PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), can cause cancer. Indoors, pollutants such as radon or asbestos can also increase your cancer risk. Lastly, air pollution can lead to heart disease, including heart attack and stroke. Now, I have a new situation: Two neighboring towns had different methods of growing crops. Lean town used insecticides, while Bean town did not. Lean town had high levels of air pollution. Answer this question please: Which town had more inhabitants experiencing heart disease?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Lean
input question: I can use this background: A dilution effect is seen when animals living in a group "dilute" their risk of attack, each individual being just one of many in the group. George C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton proposed that group living evolved because it provides benefits to the individual rather than to the group as a whole, which becomes more conspicuous as it becomes larger. One common example is the shoaling of fish. Experiments provide direct evidence for the decrease in individual attack rate seen with group living, for example in Camargue horses in Southern France. The horse-fly often attacks these horses, sucking blood and carrying diseases. When the flies are most numerous, the horses gather in large groups, and individuals are indeed attacked less frequently. Water striders are insects that live on the surface of fresh water, and are attacked from beneath by predatory fish. Experiments varying the group size of the water striders showed that the attack rate per individual water strider decreases as group size increases. Now, I have a new situation: Kenya's Masai Mara wildebeest migration is one of the greatest spectacles in the natural world. Every year thousands of wildebeests cross the Mara river. John went to see the migration last year. He noticed that the wildebeests crossed the the river in a very large group. He noted that as case A. His guide told him that is not the case in other times of the year. The wildebeests cross the river in smaller groups in other times. John noted that as case B. The guide added that in both cases on thing is constant, they are attacked by the lions. Answer this question please: In which case an individual wildebeest would get less benfit, case A or case B????
output answer: case B
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. Now, 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. Answer this question please: In which case the frequency of collisions would be lower, case A or case B?
----
Answer: case A
Q: I can use this background: Many chemicals that were once commonly used were later found out to be harmful to the environment , to human health, or both. The element lead was once a common additive to gasoline and to paint. Plumbing pipes were once typically made of lead. Only since the 1970s has the danger of lead become apparent. It causes brain damage and small children (who often chewed on objects painted with lead-based paint) are particularly susceptible. The use of lead in gasoline, paint, and plumbing pipes is now banned and new materials are being developed to replace the hazardous lead components. Now, I have a new situation: Tim and Jeb were both studying chemical engineering. At a certain point in time, Jeb started studying chemicals that are not harmful for the environment, while Tim started learning about chemicals that were once used, but now are known to be harmful for the environment. Answer this question please: Which student studied more about lead?
A:
Tim