Question: I have a new situation: Rob is an amateur astronomer. He was looking at the sky with his telescope. First he took a longer length observation. He noted his observation as case A. Then he took a shorter length observation. He noted that observation as case B. He found that it's beneficial to take both observations to get a fuller view of the observable universe. But I can use this background: Matter, dark matter, and dark energy are distributed homogeneously throughout the Universe over length scales longer than 300 million light-years or so. However, over shorter length-scales, matter tends to clump hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, large-scale galactic filaments. The observable Universe contains approximately 300 sextillion (31023) stars and more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million (107) stars up to giants with one trillion (1012) stars. Between the larger structures are voids, which are typically 10150 Mpc (33 million490 million ly) in diameter. The Milky Way is in the Local Group of galaxies, which in turn is in the Laniakea Supercluster. This supercluster spans over 500 million light-years, while the Local Group spans over 10 million light-years. The Universe also has vast regions of relative emptiness; the largest known void measures 1.8 billion ly (550 Mpc) across. What is an answer for this question: In case B would matter clump less or more hierarchically than in case A?
Answer: more
[Q]: I have a new situation: Archimedes was a great scientist. He was also a great inventor of machines. He once said that if he could stand somewhere, he could move the earth with his machine. Hearing that, king of Sicily called Archimedes and his fellow scientist Ptolemy to come up with great inventions. Archimedes, as everyone expected, came up with a great machine. But Ptolemy couldn't do much in such a limited time. So, his device was not a machine. But I can use this background: Machines make work easier by increasing the amount of force that is applied, increasing the distance over which the force is applied, or changing the direction in which the force is applied. Contrary to popular belief, machines do not increase the amount of work that is done. They just change how the work is done. So if a machine increases the force applied, it must apply the force over a shorter distance. Similarly, if a machine increases the distance over which the force is applied, it must apply less force. What is an answer for this question: Whose device would have more distance for applied force, Archimedes or Ptolemy?
****
[A]: Archimedes
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Daniel visited two countries. Switzerland and India. There was almost no air pollution at all in Switzerland, while the air in India was almost impossible to breathe it was so polluted. But I can use this background: 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. What is an answer for this question: Which country had more people develop lung cancer?
++++++++++
output: India
Please answer this: I have a new situation: Rob likes to visit high mountainous locations. Last year he visited the the Alps mountains in Austria. There he saw an unique type of glacier called valley glacier. This year he went further east to visit the Ural mountains in Russia. There he didn't see any valley glacier. But I can use this background: Plucking, also referred to as quarrying, is a glacial phenomenon that is responsible for the erosion and transportation of individual pieces of bedrock, especially large "joint blocks". This occurs in a type of glacier called a "valley glacier". As a glacier moves down a valley, friction causes the basal ice of the glacier to melt and infiltrate joints (cracks) in the bedrock. The freezing and thawing action of the ice enlarges, widens, or causes further cracks in the bedrock as it changes volume across the ice/water phase transition (a form of hydraulic wedging), gradually loosening the rock between the joints. This produces large pieces of rock called joint blocks. Eventually these joint blocks come loose and become trapped in the glacier. What is an answer for this question: Where there would not be joint blocks, Alps or Ural?
++++++++
Answer: Ural
Problem: I have a new situation: Both Alabama and Florida boast great wetlands. The State of Alabama has experienced extensive drainage system due to expansion of farmlands. Their neighboring state Florida had similar system. But recently Florida had dismantled many of their drainage systems, mostly because of pressure from different environmental groups. But I can use this background: Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation. What is an answer for this question: Would Florida lose or retain habitat of different species?

A: retain
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: 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. But I can use this background: 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. What is an answer for this question: Would forest A produce less or more carbon per square meter than forest B?
++++++++++
output:
more