[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Many mutations have no effect on the proteins they encode. These mutations are considered neutral. Occasionally, a mutation may make a protein even better than it was before. Or the protein might help the organism adapt to a new environment. These mutations are considered beneficial. An example is a mutation that helps bacteria resist antibiotics. Bacteria with the mutation increase in numbers, so the mutation becomes more common. Other mutations are harmful. They may even be deadly. Harmful mutations often result in a protein that no longer can do its job. Some harmful mutations cause cancer or other genetic disorders. I am facing a new situation today: David is a biochemist with a pharmaceutical company. He is testing three strains of bacteria, case A, case B, and case C. In case A the bacteria does not respond to antibiotics. In case B the bacteria resists antibiotics. Finally, in case C, the bacteria does not develop any immunity to antibiotics and eventually perishes. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which case there would be some effect, case A or case B?
****
[A]: case B

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution, acid rain, and global warming. Fossil fuels are also limited and may eventually run out. Like fossil fuels, radioactive elements are limited. In fact, they are relatively rare, so they could run out sooner rather than later. On the other hand, nuclear fission does not release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuels. This is the major advantage of using nuclear fission as a source of energy. I am facing a new situation today: Us and Canada are two friendly countries. Canada uses alternative methods to produce electricity while the US use more coal and oil. Both countries recently participated in a Global Warming Council. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country uses fewer non-renewable resources?
****
[A]: Canada

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Cholesterol has been implicated in heart disease for decades. Atherosclerosis is a disorder of the arteries in which cholesterol and other materials are deposited on the interior of the arterial wall. These deposits lead to the formation of plaques that can restrict or even block the flow of blood through these blood vessels (see Figure below ). A decrease in the flow of blood can lead to high blood pressure and a lowered oxygen supply to the heart muscle. A complete blockage of blood flow to parts of the heart (a heart attack) can cause significant damage due to oxygen deprivation, in some cases leading to death. I am facing a new situation today: Jake and his son Ryan just had their yearly physical examination by the doctor. As part of this year's examination, both men had their arterial walls examined to identify the presence of plaques. The doctor discovered that Jake had a high amount of plaques present on the interior of his arterial wall. Ryan, on the other hand, had no plaques present. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who is more likely to have lowered oxygen supply to their heart muscles?
****
[A]: Jake

[Q]: I read this background article the other day: The Mercator projection is best within 15 degrees north or south of the equator. Landmasses or countries outside that zone get stretched out of shape. The further the feature is from the equator, the more out of shape it is stretched. For example, if you look at Greenland on a globe, you see it is a relatively small country near the North Pole. Yet, on a Mercator projection, Greenland looks almost as big the United States. Because Greenland is closer to the pole, the continent's shape and size are greatly increased. The United States is closer to its true dimensions. I am facing a new situation today: Will is comparing a map that is based off a Mercator projection and a globe. One of the first things he decides to compare is Iceland. After that he takes a look at a small island in the pacific, named Vraska, near the equator. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which appears more stretched on a Mercator projection, Iceland or Vraska?
****
[A]:
Iceland