I read this background article the other day: The above example shows how science generally advances. New evidence is usually used to improve earlier ideas rather than entirely replace them. In this way, scientists gradually refine their ideas and increase our understanding of the world. On the other hand, sometimes science advances in big leaps. This has happened when a scientist came up with a completely new way of looking at things. For example, Albert Einstein came up with a new view of gravity. He said it was really just a dent in the fabric of space and time. I am facing a new situation today: This year scientist found concrete evidence of existence of black holes by taking photograph of one. Unfortunately, the originator of black hole theory, Stephen Hawking, was never awarded a Nobel prize despite letting science advance in big leap because his theory could not be verified during his lifetime. On the other hand, scientist B has received Nobel prize because he has based his theory on the earlier theory of scientist A. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which scientist might not have improved an earlier idea, scientist A or scientist B?
----
Answer: scientist A
Q: I read this background article the other day: Specific humidity (or moisture content) is the ratio of the mass of water vapor to the total mass of the moist air parcel.[13] Specific humidity is approximately equal to the mixing ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the mass of water vapor in an air parcel to the mass of dry air for the same parcel. As temperature decreases, the amount of water vapor needed to reach saturation also decreases. As the temperature of a parcel of air becomes lower it will eventually reach the point of saturation without adding or losing water mass. I am facing a new situation today: Tho towns located on opposite banks of a river, had a humid season, but Bend town had a cooler air at night. Bank town on the other hand, had warmer nights because it was situated on a south facing hill. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which town experienced a lower air temperature?
A: Bend
Question: I read this background article the other day: Many respiratory diseases are caused by pathogens. A pathogen is an organism that causes disease in another organism. Certain bacteria, viruses, and fungi are pathogens of the respiratory system. The common cold and flu are caused by viruses. The influenza virus that causes the flu is pictured below ( Figure below ). Tuberculosis, whooping cough, and acute bronchitis are caused by bacteria. The pathogens that cause colds, flu, and TB can be passed from person to person by coughing, sneezing, and spitting. Illnesses caused by bacteria can be treated with antibiotics. Those caused by viruses cannot. I am facing a new situation today: Mary was from a family that forbids all vaccinations. She never got any vaccines and developed immunity the hard way by getting many respiratory diseases. Ann got all here vaccines done in time and at the proper age. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person experienced whooping cough?
Answer: Mary
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: There is a zone of the atmosphere in which ozone absorbs some 98% of non-ionizing but dangerous UV-C and UV-B. This so-called ozone layer starts at about 20 miles (32 km) and extends upward. Some of the ultraviolet spectrum that does reach the ground (the part that begins above energies of 3.1 eV, a wavelength less than 400 nm) is non-ionizing, but is still biologically hazardous due to the ability of single photons of this energy to cause electronic excitation in biological molecules, and thus damage them by means of unwanted reactions. An example is the formation of pyrimidine dimers in DNA, which begins at wavelengths below 365 nm (3.4 eV), which is well below ionization energy. This property gives the ultraviolet spectrum some of the dangers of ionizing radiation in biological systems without actual ionization occurring. In contrast, visible light and longer-wavelength electromagnetic radiation, such as infrared, microwaves, and radio waves, consists of photons with too little energy to cause damaging molecular excitation, and thus this radiation is far less hazardous per unit of energy. I am facing a new situation today: John was interested in the Sun's radiations that Earth receives. One of the radiations was in the ultraviolet spectrum. He categorized it as spec A. The other radiation was the visible light. He categorized it as spec B. He then searched online to find the pros and cons of each of them. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which radiation would be more hazardous, spec A or spec B?
****
[A]: spec A
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: The theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed at about the same time by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, shown in Figure below , and was set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species . Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits, or traits that are not helpful or advantageous for survival to become more rare in a population of organisms. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits are more "fit" to survive in a particular environment and have "adapted" to the conditions of that environment. These individuals will have greater reproductive success than organisms less fit for survival in the environment. This will lead to an increase in the number of organisms with the advantageous trait(s) over time. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. I am facing a new situation today: David wants to revisit the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin and Wallace. He is particularly interested in two species of deer, species A and species B. Species A has some helpful traits, but species B has some harmful traits. He is planning to write a paper on why some species are greater in number while others are smaller in number. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would species A be less or more in number than species B?
++++++++++
output: more
I read this background article the other day: Making these healthy lifestyle choices can also help prevent some types of cancer. In addition, you can lower the risk of cancer by avoiding carcinogens , which are substances that cause cancer. For example, you can reduce your risk of lung cancer by not smoking. You can reduce your risk of skin cancer by using sunscreen. How to choose a sunscreen that offers the most protection is explained below ( Figure below ). Some people think that tanning beds are a safe way to get a tan. This is a myth. Tanning beds expose the skin to UV radiation. Any exposure to UV radiation increases the risk of skin cancer. It doesn't matter whether the radiation comes from tanning lamps or the sun. I am facing a new situation today: Michael and David are two bodybuilders currently getting ready for a competition. A key part of a bodybuilding competition is having darker skin so your muscles will stand out more. To achieve this look, Michael decides to use a tanning bed for several weeks just before the competition. David, on the other hand, decides to avoid tanning beds entirely and rubs lotion on his skin to achieve the same look instead. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who will have a higher risk of developing skin cancer, Michael or David?
----
Answer:
Michael