Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty. But I can use this background: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher. What is an answer for this question: Would people in Finland most likely be more happy or less happy than people in Russia?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
more happy

Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Two scientists went to Antarctica for research. Tim was assigned to East Antarctica, while John was assigned to West Antarctica. They spent 6 months there. But I can use this background: East Antarctica is colder than its western counterpart because of its higher elevation. Weather fronts rarely penetrate far into the continent, leaving the centre cold and dry. Despite the lack of precipitation over the central portion of the continent, ice there lasts for extended periods. Heavy snowfalls are common on the coastal portion of the continent, where snowfalls of up to 1.22 metres (48 in) in 48 hours have been recorded. What is an answer for this question: Which scientist experienced less precipitation?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
John

Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Two students learned about soils in school. Brad had to study forest soils, while his colleague Frank had to study grasslands. They both did a good job and received A's for their efforts and accumulated knowledge. But I can use this background: Soil is well developed in the forest as suggested by the thick humus layers, rich diversity of large trees and animals that live there. In forests, precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration which results in an excess of water that percolates downward through the soil layers. Slow rates of decomposition leads to large amounts of fulvic acid, greatly enhancing chemical weathering. The downward percolation, in conjunction with chemical weathering leaches magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), and aluminum (Al) from the soil and transports them downward, a process known as podzolization. This process leads to marked contrasts in the appearance and chemistry of the soil layers. What is an answer for this question: Which student read less about precipitation that exceeds evapotranspiration?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Frank