input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Charging an object by touching it with another charged object is called charging by conduction. By bringing a charged object into contact with an uncharged object, some electrons will migrate to even out the charge on both objects. Charging by conduction gives the previously uncharged object a permanent charge. An uncharged object can also be charged using a method called charging by induction . This process allows a change in charge without actually touching the charged and uncharged objects to each other. Imagine a negatively charged rod held near the knob, but not touching. If we place a finger on the knob, some of the electrons will escape into our body, instead of down the stem and into the leaves. When both our finger and the negatively charged rod are removed, the previously uncharged electroscope now has a slight positive charge. It was charged by induction. Notice that charging by induction causes the newly charged object to have the opposite charge as the originally charged object, while charging by conduction gives them both the same charge. I am facing a new situation today: John wanted to charge his electronic gadgets remotely. To that end, he first conducted two experiments, case A and case B. In case A he used conduction, and in case B he used induction. In both cases he used same two objects. Finally, John tried to charge his phone remotely. He called this test as case C. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In case B, if one object had positive charge, what charge the newly charged object would have, positive or negative?
++++++++++
output: negative

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Tropical forests (rainforests) receive more insolation and rainfall over longer growing seasons than any other environment on earth. With these elevated temperatures, insolation and rainfall, biomass is extremely productive leading to the production of as much as 800 grams of carbon per square meter per year. Higher temperatures and larger amounts of water contribute to higher rates of chemical weathering. Increased rates of decomposition cause smaller amounts of fulvic acid to percolate and leach metals from the zone of active weathering. Thus, in stark contrast to soil in forests, tropical forests have little to no podzolization and therefore do not have marked visual and chemical contrasts with the soil layers. Instead, the mobile metals Mg, Fe and Al are precipitated as oxide minerals giving the soil a rusty red color. I am facing a new situation today: John was studying the characteristics of tropical forests. For that, he chose forests in Laos. To compare the forests in Laos with the temperate zone forests he chose forests in Ireland. He could clearly see that how they differed in important ways. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which forests would see lower rates of chemical weathering, Laos or Ireland?
++++++++++
output: Ireland

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Iron is first oxidized to iron(II) ions by oxygen. In the second step, the iron(II) ions are further oxidized and combine with water and oxygen gas to produce a hydrated form of iron(III) oxide known as rust. Rusting is one of many example of corrosion. Corrosion is the deterioration of metals by redox processes. Corrosion causes enormous amounts of damage to buildings, bridges, ships, cars, and other objects. It has been estimated that corrosion costs the U.S. economy over 100 billion dollars each year. A great amount of time and effort is spent to try to limit or prevent corrosion. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring cities had different climates. Dune city had very dry air and no rain, while Bay city had very high humidity, fog and lots of rain. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city had less damage to bridges because of corrosion?
++++++++++
output: Dune

input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: A large log placed in a fire will burn relatively slowly. If the same mass of wood were added to the fire in the form of small twigs, they would burn much more quickly. This is because the twigs provide a greater surface area than the log does. An increase in the surface area of a reactant increases the rate of a reaction. Surface area is larger when a given amount of a solid is present as smaller particles. A powdered reactant has a greater surface area than the same reactant as a solid chunk. In order to increase the surface area of a substance, it may be ground into smaller particles or dissolved into a liquid. In solution, the dissolved particles are separated from each other and will react more quickly with other reactants. I am facing a new situation today: Two groups of teens studied fire for the physics class. Group S made a fire using large logs, while group F made a fire using small twigs and sawdust. Both groups used the same volume of wood. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which group provided a smaller surface area for an increased rate of the burning reaction?
++++++++++
output:
Group S