input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Rob is an amateur astronomer. He was looking at the sky with his telescope. First he took a longer length observation. He noted his observation as case A. Then he took a shorter length observation. He noted that observation as case B. He found that it's beneficial to take both observations to get a fuller view of the observable universe. But I can use this background: Matter, dark matter, and dark energy are distributed homogeneously throughout the Universe over length scales longer than 300 million light-years or so. However, over shorter length-scales, matter tends to clump hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, large-scale galactic filaments. The observable Universe contains approximately 300 sextillion (31023) stars and more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies. Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million (107) stars up to giants with one trillion (1012) stars. Between the larger structures are voids, which are typically 10150 Mpc (33 million490 million ly) in diameter. The Milky Way is in the Local Group of galaxies, which in turn is in the Laniakea Supercluster. This supercluster spans over 500 million light-years, while the Local Group spans over 10 million light-years. The Universe also has vast regions of relative emptiness; the largest known void measures 1.8 billion ly (550 Mpc) across. What is an answer for this question: Which observation would not detect stars and galaxies well, case A or case B?
++++++++++
output: case A

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Two teams of researches studied Antarctica's climate. The team studied two different regions. The US team studied East Antarctica, while the Swiss team studied West Antarctica. But I can use this background: Some of Antarctica has been warming up; particularly strong warming has been noted on the Antarctic Peninsula. A study by Eric Steig published in 2009 noted for the first time that the continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is slightly positive at >0.05 C (0.09 F) per decade from 1957 to 2006. This study also noted that West Antarctica has warmed by more than 0.1 C (0.2 F) per decade in the last 50 years, and this warming is strongest in winter and spring. This is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica. There is evidence from one study that Antarctica is warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, but this remains ambiguous. The amount of surface warming in West Antarctica, while large, has not led to appreciable melting at the surface, and is not directly affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's contribution to sea level. Instead the recent increases in glacier outflow are believed to be due to an inflow of warm water from the deep ocean, just off the continental shelf. The net contribution to sea level from the Antarctic Peninsula is more likely to be a direct result of the much greater atmospheric warming there.In 2002 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed. Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 km2 (220 sq mi) of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 km2 (5,800 sq mi) of the ice shelf at risk. The ice was being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km (4 mi) wide, prior to its collapse on 5 April 2009. According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 C (41 F).A study published in Nature Geoscience in 2013 (online in December 2012) identified central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The researchers present a complete temperature... What is an answer for this question: Which team learned about a region that shows stronger warming in spring?
++++++++++
output: Swiss

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: The weather phenomena this last month had an immense impact on Dirk county, the precipitation lead to many flood evens, the steady rain lead to massive water infiltration. 20 miles away, in Saulk county, they had a few thunderstorms, they had quite a bit of runoff, but less infiltration and less soil saturation. But I can use this background: Precipitation can impact infiltration in many ways. The amount, type and duration of precipitation all have an impact. Rainfall leads to faster infiltration rates than any other precipitation events, such as snow or sleet. In terms of amount, the more precipitation that occurs, the more infiltration will occur until the ground reaches saturation, at which point the infiltration capacity is reached. Duration of rainfall impacts the infiltration capacity as well. Initially when the precipitation event first starts the infiltration is occurring rapidly as the soil is unsaturated, but as time continues the infiltration rate slows as the soil becomes more saturated. This relationship between rainfall and infiltration capacity also determines how much runoff will occur. If rainfall occurs at a rate faster than the infiltration capacity runoff will occur. What is an answer for this question: Which county had less damage because of water infiltration?
++++++++++
output: Saulk

input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: In the sixteenth century the State of Michigan had forests all over. But that has long been gone. Especially, in the state's northeast part the vegetation has been cleared in the twentieth century. Wooded areas were replaced by farm lands. All these farmlands were under heavy Irrigation. At one time, in the sixteenth century, plant species like elm and oak used to be plentiful. We still had some elms and oaks in the twentieth century, but they were not great many in number. But I can use this background: Groundwater salinization compromises buffering properties. Vegetation clearance, along with irrigation, causes serious issues. Irrigation increases the water table and mobilizes salts, and vegetation clearance allows it to come in contact with water habitats and vegetation. This stresses species not adapted to high salinity. High levels of salinity reduces water uptake in plants, by causing stomatal closure, reducing photosynthesis. Forests undergo decline in areas of high salinity and shallow groundwater depths because these conditions make them more susceptible to droughts. Forests undergo decline in areas of high salinity and shallow groundwater depths making them more susceptible to droughts. What is an answer for this question: In which century plant species in northeast Michigan were in more stress, sixteenth century or twentieth century?
++++++++++
output:
twentieth century