input question: I read this background article the other day: A mycorrhiza (Greek for "fungus roots") is a symbiotic association between a fungus and the roots of a plant. In a mycorrhizal association, the fungus may colonize the roots of a host plant by either growing directly into the root cells, or by growing around the root cells. This association provides the fungus with relatively constant and direct access to glucose, which the plant produces by photosynthesis. The mycelia of the fungi increase the surface area of the plant's root system. The larger surface area improves water and mineral nutrient absorption from the soil. I am facing a new situation today: Two mycologists studied about mushrooms. Bert studied mycorrhizal fungi, while Vince studied saprophytic mushrooms. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person studied more about fungus colonizing roots of a host plant????
output answer: Bert
I read this background article the other day: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That's because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. I am facing a new situation today: Two sister cities had different environments. Shanghai had big problems with air pollution while Berna took very good care of the surrounding environment and air quality. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city had air that was not harmful to human beings?
----
Answer: Berna
Q: I read this background article the other day: Tropical forests (rainforests) receive more insolation and rainfall over longer growing seasons than any other environment on earth. With these elevated temperatures, insolation and rainfall, biomass is extremely productive leading to the production of as much as 800 grams of carbon per square meter per year. Higher temperatures and larger amounts of water contribute to higher rates of chemical weathering. Increased rates of decomposition cause smaller amounts of fulvic acid to percolate and leach metals from the zone of active weathering. Thus, in stark contrast to soil in forests, tropical forests have little to no podzolization and therefore do not have marked visual and chemical contrasts with the soil layers. Instead, the mobile metals Mg, Fe and Al are precipitated as oxide minerals giving the soil a rusty red color. I am facing a new situation today: David is an environmental scientist. Last summer he visited the tropical forest in Brazil. He labeled that part of his study as forest A. To understand the differences between forests he then visited the temperate forest in Germany. He labeled that part of his study as forest B. He found significant differences in these two types of forests. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would forest A produce less or more carbon per square meter than forest B?
A: more
Question: I read this background article the other day: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided." I am facing a new situation today: Tom and Jerry are two friends who have always had competitions with one another throughout their whole lives. Yesterday, they just finished their most unique competition so far. Each man was given a room to sit in that had several highly radioactive objects in it. The challenge was to see who would stay in the chamber longer. Tom didn't stay in his room for very long, but Jerry felt determined to win and stayed in his chamber almost the entire day. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who is more likely to need a liver transplant?
Answer: Jerry
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Excess intake of calcium may cause hypercalcaemia. However, because calcium is absorbed rather inefficiently by the intestines, high serum calcium is more likely caused by excessive secretion of parathyroid hormone (PTH) or possibly by excessive intake of vitamin D, both which facilitate calcium absorption. It may also be due to bone destruction that occurs when tumours metastasize within bone. All these conditions result in excess calcium salts being deposited in the heart, blood vessels, or kidneys. Symptoms include anorexia, nausea, vomiting, memory loss, confusion, muscle weakness, increased urination, dehydration, and metabolic bone disease. Chronic hypercalcaemia typically leads to calcification of soft tissue and its serious consequences: for example, calcification can cause loss of elasticity of vascular walls and disruption of laminar blood flowand thence to plaque rupture and thrombosis. Conversely, inadequate calcium or vitamin D intakes may result in hypocalcaemia, often caused also by inadequate secretion of parathyroid hormone or defective PTH receptors in cells. Symptoms include neuromuscular excitability, which potentially causes tetany and disruption of conductivity in cardiac tissue. I am facing a new situation today: Two friends went to the doctor because they weren't feeling well. As it turns out Danny had a condition called hypercalcaemia, while Greg had hypocalcaemia. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend didn't have neuromuscular excitability?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Danny