[Q]: I read this background article the other day: When you add sugar to a cold drink, you may stir it to help the sugar dissolve. If you don't stir, the sugar may eventually dissolve, but it will take much longer. Stirring is one of several factors that affect how fast a solute dissolves in a solvent. Temperature is another factor. A solid solute dissolves faster at a higher temperature. For example, sugar dissolves faster in hot tea than in ice tea. A third factor that affects the rate of dissolving is the surface area of the solute. For example, if you put granulated sugar in a glass of ice tea, it will dissolve more quickly than the same amount of sugar in a cube. That's because granulated sugar has much more surface area than a cube of sugar. You can see videos of all three factors at these URLs I am facing a new situation today: Greg is is a chef. Last night, he was in his kitchen preparing foods for the guests. First, he made some lemonade. In trial one he added some honey in it and stirred it, but in trial two he didn't stir it. Then he made some coffee. In trial three he added hot water in it, but in trial four he added cold water in it. Finally, he made some soup. In trial five he added fine grain salt in it, but in trial six he added coarse salt in it. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would the soup be prepared faster or slower in trial five than in trial six?
****
[A]: faster
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: When humans dig up and use fossil fuels, we have an impact on the carbon cycle ( Figure below ). This carbon is not recycled until it is used by humans. The burning of fossil fuels releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is used by photosynthesis. So, there is more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere than is coming out of it. Carbon dioxide is known as a greenhouse gas , since it lets in light energy but does not let heat escape, much like the panes of a greenhouse. The increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is contributing to a global rise in Earth's temperature, known as global warming or global climate change. I am facing a new situation today: India decided to use fossil fuels to produce their electricity, and Nepal decided to go renewable and use only hydro power 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 contributed less to a global rise in Earth's temperature?
++++++++++
output: Nepal
Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: It mutates DNA. The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on April 26, 1986. It is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. A Russian publication concludes that 985,000 excess cancers occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination. The 2011 report of the European Committee on Radiation Risk calculates a total of 1.4 million excess cancers occurred as a result of this contamination. I am facing a new situation today: A Power plant meltdown near the town of Jeskai causes a large amount of radiation to leak into the surrounding area. While some evacuated many people just assumed the power plant should be far enough away to not really affect them. . Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will the citizens of Jeskai have a higher or lower chance of getting cancer?
++++++++
Answer: higher
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Rain dissolves fertilizer in the soil. Runoff carries it away. The fertilizer ends up in bodies of water, from ponds to oceans. Nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water. Since there is a lot of nitrogen, it causes algae to grow out of control. Pictured below is a pond covered with algae ( Figure below ). Algae use up carbon dioxide in the water. After the algae die, decomposers break down the dead tissue. The decomposers use up all the oxygen in the water. This creates a dead zone. A dead zone is an area in a body of water where nothing grows because there is too little oxygen. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ( Figure below ). The U.S. states outlined on the map have rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico. The rivers drain vast agricultural lands. The water carries fertilizer from these areas into the Gulf. I am facing a new situation today: Two farmer's associations used different agricultural methods when growing crops. Bold farm used lots of fertilizers over the years, while Shallow farm used organic methods combined with methods from permaculture. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farm put more fertilizer into bodies of water?

A: Bold
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: One of the main causes of extinction is introduction of exotic species into an environment. These exotic and new species can also be called invasive species or non-native species . These non-native species, being new to an area, may not have natural predators in the new habitat, which allows their populations to easily adapt and grow. Invasive species out-compete the native species for resources. Sometimes invasive species are so successful at living in a certain habitat that the native species go extinct ( Figure below ). I am facing a new situation today: India decided to introduce several exotic species into their environment, while Singapore was very protective of its native species. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country didn't observe that non-native species may not have natural predators in the new habitat?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Singapore
Problem: I read this background article the other day: As for the public health or food safety concern, organic foods are intended to be healthy, free of contaminations and free from agents that could cause human diseases. Organic milk is meant to have no chemical residues to consumers, and the restrictions on the use of antibiotics and chemicals in organic food production has the purpose to accomplish this goal. Although dairy cows in both organic and conventional farming practices can be exposed to pathogens, it has been shown that, because antibiotics are not permitted as a preventative measure in organic practices, there are far fewer antibiotic resistant pathogens on organic farms. This dramatically increases the efficacy of antibiotics when/if they are necessary. I am facing a new situation today: Two friends decided to lose weight. Tammy started eating healthier, she only used organic products. Fay reduced the number of calories, but still ate conventional food and produce. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend ate more food that was free from agents which could cause human diseases?

A:
Tammy