Q: I have a new situation: Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty. But I can use this background: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher. What is an answer for this question: Would people in Russia most likely be more happy or less happy than people in Finland?
A: less happy

Q: I have a new situation: Michael and his brother John are making protein shakes. They are mixing different sizes of protein powder into the shakes to see if that impacts how the powder dissolves into the shake. Michael makes his shake using large individual pieces of protein powder, while John makes his shake using small individual pieces of powder. But I can use this background: Mechanical weathering increases the rate of chemical weathering. As rock breaks into smaller pieces, the surface area of the pieces increases. With more surfaces exposed, there are more places for chemical weathering to occur ( Figure below ). Let's say you wanted to make some hot chocolate on a cold day. It would be hard to get a big chunk of chocolate to dissolve in your milk or hot water. Maybe you could make hot chocolate from some smaller pieces like chocolate chips, but it is much easier to add a powder to your milk. This is because the smaller the pieces are, the more surface area they have. Smaller pieces dissolve more easily. What is an answer for this question: Whose shake will have more easily dissolved protein powder?
A: John

Q: I have a new situation: Customers bought two types of electrical ovens, type A and type B. They were all happy at first but type B ovens started to short circuit. But I can use this background: For example, if a circuit has a potential difference of 100 volts and it is intended for the circuit to contain a 100 ohm resistance, then the wires carrying the current for this circuit will be designed for 1.0 amp. If that 100 ohm resistance is suddenly cut out of the circuit and only 0.10 ohm resistance remains, then the voltage will push 1000 amps of current through the circuit. This current overheats the wires and may damage the circuits or start a fire in the walls or the appliance. There are many possible causes of a short circuit, one possible cause could be something overheating, melting wires, and thereby fusing the circuit closed, bypassing the resistance. Another cause might be something damaging the insulation of a wire, allowing the incoming and grounds wires to touch. In any case, once the resistance is lost, the voltage pushes a huge amount of charge through the wires causing them to overheat. What is an answer for this question: Which type of oven had fewer damaged circuits?
A: type A

Q: I have a new situation: John wanted to revisit Aristotle's theory of tetrapods. To that end, he chose two tetrapods, tetA and tetB. An adult tetA was heavier than an adult tetB. Moreover, a tetA had longer gestation period than tetB. He needed to figure out how their characteristics fit Aristotle's theory. But I can use this background: From the data he collected and documented, Aristotle inferred quite a number of rules relating the life-history features of the live-bearing tetrapods (terrestrial placental mammals) that he studied. Among these correct predictions are the following. Brood size decreases with (adult) body mass, so that an elephant has fewer young (usually just one) per brood than a mouse. Lifespan increases with gestation period, and also with body mass, so that elephants live longer than mice, have a longer period of gestation, and are heavier. As a final example, fecundity decreases with lifespan, so long-lived kinds like elephants have fewer young in total than short-lived kinds like mice. What is an answer for this question: Which tetrapod would live longer, tetA or tetB?
A:
tetA