Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: There is growing concern regarding the use of pesticides in agriculture. Therefore, many of the current commercial applications of modern biotechnology in agriculture are focused on reducing the dependence of farmers on these chemicals. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces a protein that can act as an insecticide, known as the Bt toxin . But it is a naturally occurring protein, not a foreign chemical. Could this protein be used in crops instead of pesticides? Traditionally, an insecticidal spray has been produced from these bacteria. As a spray, the Bt toxin is in an inactive state and requires digestion by an insect to become active and have any effect. Crop plants have now been engineered to contain and express the genes for the Bt toxin, which they produce in its active form. When an insect ingests the transgenic crop, it stops feeding and soon thereafter dies as a result of the Bt toxin binding to its gut wall. Bt corn is now commercially available in a number of countries to control corn borer (an insect like a moth or butterfly), which is otherwise controlled by insecticidal spraying. Now, I have a new situation: Environmental scientists are trying to find a solution to reducing the harmful effects of chemicals on the environment. To that end, they developed a transgenic crop with the help of Bt toxin - they referred to it as case A. To test the effectiveness of this new crop they also studied Bt toxin spray - they referred to it as case B. They need to figure out which case is safer for the environment. Answer this question please: In which case the Bt toxin would bind to the insect's gut wall, case A or case B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
case A

Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: For example, if a circuit has a potential difference of 100 volts and it is intended for the circuit to contain a 100 ohm resistance, then the wires carrying the current for this circuit will be designed for 1.0 amp. If that 100 ohm resistance is suddenly cut out of the circuit and only 0.10 ohm resistance remains, then the voltage will push 1000 amps of current through the circuit. This current overheats the wires and may damage the circuits or start a fire in the walls or the appliance. There are many possible causes of a short circuit, one possible cause could be something overheating, melting wires, and thereby fusing the circuit closed, bypassing the resistance. Another cause might be something damaging the insulation of a wire, allowing the incoming and grounds wires to touch. In any case, once the resistance is lost, the voltage pushes a huge amount of charge through the wires causing them to overheat. Now, I have a new situation: John is preparing for a do it yourself science project. First, he made a circuit with adequate resistance. He labeled that state of the circuit as circuit A. Then he lowered the resistance. He called that new state of the circuit as circuit B. While he was doing all this, his friend Keith showed up with another circuit, circuit C. But that circuit's insulation was damaged. Answer this question please: Which circuit would push greater amount of charge through the wire, circuit A or circuit B?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
circuit B

Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: The dangers of global warming are being increasingly studied by a wide global consortium of scientists. These scientists are increasingly concerned about the potential long-term effects of global warming on our natural environment and on the planet. Of particular concern is how climate change and global warming caused by anthropogenic, or human-made releases of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, can act interactively, and have adverse effects upon the planet, its natural environment and humans' existence. It is clear the planet is warming, and warming rapidly. This is due to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by greenhouse gases, which trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere because of their more complex molecular structure which allows them to vibrate and in turn trap heat and release it back towards the Earth. This warming is also responsible for the extinction of natural habitats, which in turn leads to a reduction in wildlife population.The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the group of the leading climate scientists in the world) concluded that the earth will warm anywhere from 2.7 to almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 to 6 degrees Celsius) between 1990 and 2100. Now, I have a new situation: Jessica and Milly are two politicians currently in the running for governor of their city. They are in the process of having a debate that is being broadcast on local television. Mike, an avid environmentalist who is trying to decide who to vote for, has been watching the entire debate. He feels the most important issue when voting is saving the planet and the animals on it. The question that was just asked by the moderator was "what do you think should be done with the Earth's atmosphere?" Jessica responds that she thinks we should emit more anthropogenic gases. She believes that will lead to the best outcome for the world. Milly states that we need to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. Answer this question please: Which person is more likely to lead to the extinction of humans?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Jessica