Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring lands experienced different climates. In Iceland, the actions of its people lead to a loss of animal and plant species. Denmark tried to keep the environment untouched as they understood its importance and the climate was unaffected. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country has to do less ecological restoration?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Denmark

Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Another example of incomplete dominance is with sickle cell anemia, a disease in which a blood protein called hemoglobin is produced incorrectly. This causes the red blood cells to have a sickle shape, making it difficult for these misshapen cells to pass through the smallest blood vessels. A person that is homozygous recessive ( ss ) for the sickle cell trait will have red blood cells that all have the incorrect hemoglobin. A person who is homozygous dominant ( SS ) will have normal red blood cells. I am facing a new situation today: Tom and Jerry are visiting the doctor today to have blood work done as part of a regular check up. After working on Tom's blood, the doctor tells him that his red blood cells should have no issue traversing his blood vessels. Jerry is told that his red blood cells are struggling to pass through his blood vessels and the doctor would like to run some more tests to see what the issue might be. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Is Jerry's hemoglobin being produced correctly or incorrectly?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
incorrectly

Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Excess intake of calcium may cause hypercalcaemia. However, because calcium is absorbed rather inefficiently by the intestines, high serum calcium is more likely caused by excessive secretion of parathyroid hormone (PTH) or possibly by excessive intake of vitamin D, both which facilitate calcium absorption. It may also be due to bone destruction that occurs when tumours metastasize within bone. All these conditions result in excess calcium salts being deposited in the heart, blood vessels, or kidneys. Symptoms include anorexia, nausea, vomiting, memory loss, confusion, muscle weakness, increased urination, dehydration, and metabolic bone disease. Chronic hypercalcaemia typically leads to calcification of soft tissue and its serious consequences: for example, calcification can cause loss of elasticity of vascular walls and disruption of laminar blood flowand thence to plaque rupture and thrombosis. Conversely, inadequate calcium or vitamin D intakes may result in hypocalcaemia, often caused also by inadequate secretion of parathyroid hormone or defective PTH receptors in cells. Symptoms include neuromuscular excitability, which potentially causes tetany and disruption of conductivity in cardiac tissue. I am facing a new situation today: Two friends went to the doctor because they weren't feeling well. As it turns out Danny had a condition called hypercalcaemia, while Greg had hypocalcaemia. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend had an excessive secretion of parathyroid hormone (PTH)?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Danny