input question: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: Two farmers tried different methods of growing their crops. Nate used pesticides, while his buddy Don used bacterium that produces a toxin instead. Don was happy with the results. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farmer didn't use a an insecticidal spray that is in an inactive state and requires digestion by an insect to become active????
output answer: Nate

input question: I read this background article the other day: Distance decay is a geographical term which describes the effect of distance on cultural or spatial interactions. The distance decay effect states that the interaction between two locales declines as the distance between them increases. Once the distance is outside of the two locales' activity space, their interactions begin to decrease. With the advent of faster travel, distance has less effect than it did in the past, except where places previously connected by now-abandoned railways, for example, have fallen off the beaten path. Advances in communications technology, such as telegraphs, telephones, broadcasting, and internet, have further decreased the effects of distance.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring countries with similar economies, followed different political and economical agendas. Niger developed its infrastructure and communications technology, while Nigeria didn't. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country will be less developed as a consequence of their agendas????
output answer: Nigeria

input question: I read this background article the other day: Air pollution is harmful to human beings and other living things. About 22 million people die from air pollution each year. Breathing polluted air increases the risk of developing lung diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. Breathing bad air also increases the chances of dying from other diseases. Children are most likely to be affected by air pollution. That's because their lungs are still developing and growing. Children also take in more air for their size than adults do. Some air pollutants damage the environment as well as the health of living things. The type of damage depends on the pollutant. Air pollution can also harm the environment. I am facing a new situation today: Manny visited 2 countries. First he visited Australia, a country which respected the environment and produced zero air pollution, and New Zealand, a country which based its economy on burning fossil fuels and generated a lot of air pollution. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country had less environmental damage because of air pollution????
output answer: Australia

input question: I read this background article the other day: Because of its temperature, the atmosphere emits infrared radiation. For example, on clear nights Earth's surface cools down faster than on cloudy nights. This is because clouds (H2O) are strong absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation. This is also why it becomes colder at night at higher elevations. I am facing a new situation today: David was visiting Europe last summer. First he visited London. To his dismay, it was overcast all night. Then he flew to Rome. There the sky was as clear as you could get at night. David was very happy about it. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which place less infrared radiation would be absorbed in the atmosphere, London or Rome????
output answer:
Rome