input question: I can use this background: In nature, when the population size is small, there is usually plenty of food and other resources for each individual. When there is plenty of food and other resources, organisms can easily reproduce, so the birth rate is high. As the population increases, the food supply, or the supply of another necessary resource, may decrease. When necessary resources, such as food, decrease, some individuals will die. Overall, the population cannot reproduce at the same rate, so the birth rates drop. This will cause the population growth rate to decrease. Now, I have a new situation: John is studying a species in two similar countries, country A and country B. Country A has large population, but country B has small population of that species. John is pondering about how this species would fare in the future in these two countries. Answer this question please: In which country the growth rate of the species would be higher, country A or country B????
output answer: country B

input question: I can use this background: Often, foreign exchange controls can result in the creation of black markets to exchange the weaker currency for stronger currencies. This leads to a situation where the exchange rate for the foreign currency is much higher than the rate set by the government, and therefore creates a shadow currency exchange market. As such, it is unclear whether governments have the ability to enact effective exchange controls.[1] Now, I have a new situation: Pakistan tried to control the foreign exchange market and India didn't. By creating the foreign exchange control department, Pakistan tried to stop the devaluation of their currency. India chose to not interfere and let the exchange market regulate itself. Answer this question please: Which country was less regulated in regards to foreign currency exchange????
output answer: India

input question: I can use this background: 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. Now, I have a new situation: 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. Answer this question please: In case B, would the protein become better or worse than in case C????
output answer: better

input question: I can use this background: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution that harms the health of living things. The air pollution also causes acid rain and contributes to global warming. In addition, fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, so if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The main advantage of nuclear energy is that it doesn't release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels. On the other other hand, radioactive elements are nonrenewable like fossil fuels and could eventually be used up. Now, I have a new situation: Two competing countries used different energy sources to produce their electricity. Turkey used mostly fossil fuels, while Greece used nuclear power. Answer this question please: Which country contributed less to global warming????
output answer:
Greece