Problem: I read this background article the other day: Shown in the Figure below is a cylinder of gas on the left that is at room temperature (300 K). On the right, the cylinder has been heated until the Kelvin temperature has doubled to 600 K. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases, so collisions with the walls of the container are now more forceful than they were before. As a result, the pressure of the gas doubles. Decreasing the temperature would have the opposite effect, and the pressure of an enclosed gas would decrease. I am facing a new situation today: Nicholas works in pest control, and needs to have a steady supply of nitrogen gas for his tools. He always keeps a closed container of nitrogen gas in his freezer, where the temperature is very low. Nicholas's neighbor, Justin, likes to grill in his backyard. Justin, therefore, always keeps a closed container of propane gas outside, where the temperature is high. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: The container of which gas will have higher pressure inside it?

A: propane gas
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: The quantity of small plastic fragments floating in the north-east Pacific Ocean increased a hundredfold between 1972 and 2012.Marine pollution is a generic term for the harmful entry into the ocean of chemicals or particles. The main culprits are those using the rivers for disposing of their waste. The rivers then empty into the ocean, often also bringing chemicals used as fertilizers in agriculture. The excess of oxygen-depleting chemicals in the water leads to hypoxia and the creation of a dead zone.Marine debris, also known as marine litter, is human-created waste that has ended up floating in a lake, sea, ocean, or waterway. Oceanic debris tends to accumulate at the center of gyres and coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter.In addition, the Pacific Ocean has served as the crash site of satellites, including Mars 96, Fobos-Grunt, and Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. I am facing a new situation today: Ecuador and Panama both had beautiful rivers flowing into the Pacific ocean. Ecuador uses their river to dispose of their waste while Panama is very eco-friendly and doesn't do that. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country causes less hypoxia in the ocean?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Panama
input question: I read this background article the other day: As a young man, Bohr worked in Rutherford's lab in England. Because Rutherford's model was weak on the position of the electrons, Bohr focused on them. He hypothesized that electrons can move around the nucleus only at fixed distances from the nucleus based on the amount of energy they have. He called these fixed distances energy levels, or electron shells. He thought of them as concentric spheres, with the nucleus at the center of each sphere. In other words, the shells consisted of sphere within sphere within sphere. Furthermore, electrons with less energy would be found at lower energy levels, closer to the nucleus. Those with more energy would be found at higher energy levels, farther from the nucleus. Bohr also hypothesized that if an electron absorbed just the right amount of energy, it would jump to the next higher energy level. Conversely, if it lost the same amount of energy, it would jump back to its original energy level. However, an electron could never exist in between two energy levels. These ideas are illustrated in the Figure below . I am facing a new situation today: Greg was studying Bohr's model. He found it helpful to categorize different scenarios in the model. First, he labeled electron with higher energy as cat A, and electron with lower energy as cat B. Then he labeled electron that gained energy as cat C, and election that lost energy as cat D. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would cat B be closer to or farther from the nucleus than cat A????
output answer: closer
I read this background article the other day: Greenhouse Effect: The solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is concentrated in short wavelengths, which can easily penetrate the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. The Earth, however, is cooler than the sun and it radiates its heat in the form of energy in the far infrared range. These longer wavelengths are partially absorbed by the greenhouse gases and some of the solar heat is returned to Earth. At a certain temperature these processes are in equilibrium and the surface temperature of the Earth is stable. However, if more greenhouse gases are put in the atmosphere the amount of trapped terrestrial radiation increases, leading to an increase in global temperature. I am facing a new situation today: John was interested in climate change issues. To that end, he studied two imaginary situations, case A and case B. In case A, there would not be excessive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. On the contrary, in case B, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would increase dramatically. John realized that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has many practical implications. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would the surface temperature of the Earth be lower or higher in case A than in case B?
----
Answer: lower
Q: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two islands of identical size with similar ecosystems experienced different destinies. Caribu island, inhabited by more natives, hunted a few of the animal species there, contributing to the extinction of a few. People from Hiji island, were pescotarian, and hardly ever fished. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island experienced less biodiversity loss?
A: Hiji
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: One reason radiation is dangerous is that it can't be detected with the senses. You normally can't see it, smell it, hear it, or feel it. Fortunately, there are devices such as Geiger counters that can detect radiation. A Geiger counter, like the one in Figure below , has a tube that contains atoms of a gas. If radiation enters the tube, it turns gas atoms to ions that carry electric current. The current causes the Geiger counter to click. The faster the clicks occur, the higher the level of radiation. I am facing a new situation today: Tom and Jacob are carrying Geiger counters through an old abandoned city near a nuclear plant. Tom walks into a hotel and looks around at all the paintings and old couches in the lobby. His Geiger counter remains silent, but as he walks up the stairs toward the second floor it starts to slowly but steadily make more sound. Jacob steps into a grocery store when his Geiger counter immediately starts making lots of noise, but his device starts to drop off in sound as he walks toward the freezer in the back of the store. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who is currently detecting less radiation?
****
[A]:
Tom