Problem: I read this background article the other day: Overconsumption is a situation where resource use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases. I am facing a new situation today: The country of Qatar is opulent, to say the least. They have one of the highest per capita income in the world - exceeding that of Western Europe and North America. Over-consumption is the way of life in Qatar. While similarly small country of Bhutan puts emphasis on the happiness of its citizens in a different way. Bhutan does not give way to material over-consumption like Qatar does - it cares about its citizens' spiritual and social well-being. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will Bhutan's environment most likely degrade or sustain?

A: sustain
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Because of human activities, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Burning fossil fuels and has released great quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Cutting forests and clearing land has also increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because these activities reduce the number of autotrophic organisms that use up carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. In addition, clearing often involves burning, which releases carbon dioxide that was previously stored in autotrophs. I am facing a new situation today: Two cities had different energy source. Big city burned fossil fuels cut forests and cleared land, while Blue city used alternative sources of energy. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city cleared more lands?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Big
input question: I read this background article the other day: All of these animal behaviors are important. They help the animals get food for energy, make sure their young survive, or ensure that they, themselves, survive. Behaviors that help animals or their young survive, increase the animals' fitness. Animals with higher fitness have a better chance of passing their genes on to the next generation. If genes control behaviors that increase fitness, the behaviors become more common in the species. This occurs through the process of evolution by natural selection. I am facing a new situation today: David is a biologist. He was in the African savanna to study different species. Especially, he was interested in two species, rhinos and impalas. He noticed that in response to constant human encroachment of wildlife habitats, impalas have acquired some behaviors that help them and their young. Rhinos also have acquired some behaviors in response to the same threat. But their behaviors mostly failed them in that aspect. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which species would have higher chance of passing their genes on to the next genertion, rhino or impala????
output answer: impala
I read this background article the other day: Hemophilia is the name of a group of hereditary diseases that affect the body's ability to control blood clotting. Hemophilia is caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood. Clotting factors are normally released by platelets. Since people with hemophilia cannot produce clots, any cut can put a person at risk of bleeding to death. The risk of internal bleeding is also increased in hemophilia, especially into muscles and joints. This disease affected the royal families of Europe. I am facing a new situation today: Mary had two twin daughters, Mimi and Coco. Coco was healthy, but Mimi had hemophilia. Mimi took frequent trips to the doctor's office. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which girl had the same disease as the royal families of Europe?
----
Answer: Mimi
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, acid rain, and global warming. Fossil fuels are also limited and may eventually run out. Like fossil fuels, radioactive elements are limited. In fact, they are relatively rare, so they could run out sooner rather than later. On the other hand, nuclear fission does not release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuels. This is the major advantage of using nuclear fission as a source of energy. I am facing a new situation today: Us and Canada are two friendly countries. Canada uses alternative methods to produce electricity while the US use more coal and oil. Both countries recently participated in a Global Warming Council. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country uses fewer non-renewable resources?
A: Canada
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. I am facing a new situation today: Two pedologists studied different types of soil. Yun studied forest soils, while Jian studied grassland soil. They were both very surprised with they findings. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which scientist read less about soils with greater acidity?
****
[A]:
Jian