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?
----
Answer: Hiji
Q: I read this background article the other day: During late adulthood, the risk of developing diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and cancer continues to rise. Most people also have a decline in strength and stamina. Their senses may start failing, and their reflex time typically increases. Their immune system also doesn't work as well as it used to. As a result, common diseases like the flu may become more serious and even lead to death. The majority of late adults develop arthritis, and as many as one in four develop Alzheimer's disease. I am facing a new situation today: Margaret is a sophomore in high school who just started her Spring break. With a week off from school, her family is spending some time driving out of state to visit her grandma, Kathy, who has a cabin up in the snowy mountains. Margaret always enjoys spending time with her grandma because she has interesting stories and makes some of the best pie around. Also, they always go skiing when visiting the cabin so Margaret is excited for that. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will Kathy be able to ski more or less than Margaret?
A: less
Question: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: Timber village started a channelization process by draining all the swamps near their village. Hill village situated 10 miles to the south, left their swamps untouched. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which village drained more swamps situated in their vicinity?
Answer: Timber
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution that harms the health of living things. The air pollution also causes acid rain and contributes to global warming. In addition, fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, so if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The main advantage of nuclear energy is that it doesn't release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels. On the other other hand, radioactive elements are nonrenewable like fossil fuels and could eventually be used up. I am facing a new situation today: Canada produced its electricity by using fossil fuels and nuclear fission. New Zealand used only alternative, renewable sources to produce their electricity. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country causes more air pollution?
****
[A]: Canada
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: The body's second line of defense against pathogens includes the inflammatory response. If bacteria enter the skin through a scrape, the area may become red, warm, and painful. These are signs of inflammation. Inflammation is one way the body reacts to infections or injuries. Inflammation is caused by chemicals that are released when skin or other tissues are damaged. The chemicals cause nearby blood vessels to dilate, or expand. This increases blood flow to the damaged area, which makes the area red and slightly warm. The chemicals also attract white blood cells called neutrophils to the wound and cause them to leak out of blood vessels into the damaged tissue. I am facing a new situation today: A team of researchers named Alpha did some research on the inflammatory response in humans for a science contest. A competing team called Omega did research on the human genome. Team Omega lost. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which team studied less about the body's second line of defense against pathogens?
++++++++++
output: Omega
I read this background article the other day: Serpentine soils (media with low concentrations of nutrients and high concentrations of heavy metals) can be a source of abiotic stress. Initially, the absorption of toxic metal ions is limited by cell membrane exclusion. Ions that are absorbed into tissues are sequestered in cell vacuoles. This sequestration mechanism is facilitated by proteins on the vacuole membrane.Chemical priming has been proposed to increase tolerance to abiotic stresses in crop plants. In this method, which is analogous to vaccination, stress-inducing chemical agents are introduced to the plant in brief doses so that the plant begins preparing defense mechanisms. Thus, when the abiotic stress occurs, the plant has already prepared defense mechanisms that can be activated faster and increase tolerance. I am facing a new situation today: In a greenhouse, a botanist has just finished planting two of the same kind of plant. Plant A was placed in a pot of standard soil, and plant B was planted in some serpentine soil. The botanist is planning on taking care of both plants equally so he can see which type of soil is better for growing a plant. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will plant B be more or less healthy than plant A in the future?
----
Answer:
less