input question: I have a new situation: John is studying a species in two similar countries, country A and country B. Country A has large population, but country B has small population of that species. John is pondering about how this species would fare in the future in these two countries. But I can use this background: In nature, when the population size is small, there is usually plenty of food and other resources for each individual. When there is plenty of food and other resources, organisms can easily reproduce, so the birth rate is high. As the population increases, the food supply, or the supply of another necessary resource, may decrease. When necessary resources, such as food, decrease, some individuals will die. Overall, the population cannot reproduce at the same rate, so the birth rates drop. This will cause the population growth rate to decrease. What is an answer for this question: In which country the growth rate of the species would be higher, country A or country B????
output answer: country B

input question: I have a new situation: A group of students in biology class studied fermentation. Team A studied alcoholic fermentation, while team B learned more about lactic fermentation. They later organised a trivia contest between teams. But I can use this background: Animals and some bacteria and fungi carry out lactic acid fermentation. Lactic acid is a waste product of this process. Our muscles perform lactic acid fermentation during strenuous exercise, since oxygen cannot be delivered to the muscles quickly enough. The buildup of lactic acid is believed to make your muscles sore after exercise. Bacteria that produce lactic acid are used to make cheese and yogurt. The lactic acid causes the proteins in milk to thicken. Lactic acid also causes tooth decay, because bacteria use the sugars in your mouth for energy. What is an answer for this question: Which team studied less about bacteria????
output answer: Team A

input question: I have a new situation: Kenya's Masai Mara wildebeest migration is one of the greatest spectacles in the natural world. Every year thousands of wildebeests cross the Mara river. John went to see the migration last year. He noticed that the wildebeests crossed the the river in a very large group. He noted that as case A. His guide told him that is not the case in other times of the year. The wildebeests cross the river in smaller groups in other times. John noted that as case B. The guide added that in both cases on thing is constant, they are attacked by the lions. But I can use this background: A dilution effect is seen when animals living in a group "dilute" their risk of attack, each individual being just one of many in the group. George C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton proposed that group living evolved because it provides benefits to the individual rather than to the group as a whole, which becomes more conspicuous as it becomes larger. One common example is the shoaling of fish. Experiments provide direct evidence for the decrease in individual attack rate seen with group living, for example in Camargue horses in Southern France. The horse-fly often attacks these horses, sucking blood and carrying diseases. When the flies are most numerous, the horses gather in large groups, and individuals are indeed attacked less frequently. Water striders are insects that live on the surface of fresh water, and are attacked from beneath by predatory fish. Experiments varying the group size of the water striders showed that the attack rate per individual water strider decreases as group size increases. What is an answer for this question: In case A, would an individual wildebeest get less or more benfit than in case B????
output answer: more

input question: I have a new situation: Keith was reading a book on climate. He found an interesting table that showed the climatic conditions of the earth in two different times, time A and time B. Time A showed earth's climatic condition in the previous century. And, time B showed earth's climatic condition in the present century. Keith was amazed to see how the world has changed in just a century. But I can use this background: Another major cause of extinction is global warming , which is also known as global climate change. During the past century, the Earth's average temperature has risen by almost 1C (about 1.3F). You may not think that is significant, but to organisms that live in the wild and are constantly adapting to their environments, any climate change can be hazardous. Recall that burning fossil fuels releases gasses into the atmosphere that warm the Earth. Our increased use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, is changing the Earth's climate. Any long-term change in the climate can destroy the habitat of a species. Even a brief change in climate may be too stressful for an organism to survive. For example, if the seas increase in temperature, even briefly, it may be too warm for certain types of fish to reproduce. What is an answer for this question: Which period would be more helpful for habitat of species, time A or time B????
output answer:
time A