Q: I can use this background: Ionizing radiation has many practical uses in medicine, research and construction, but presents a health hazard if used improperly. Exposure to radiation causes damage to living tissue; high doses result in Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with skin burns, hair loss, internal organ failure and death, while any dose may result in an increased chance of cancer and genetic damage; a particular form of cancer, thyroid cancer, often occurs when nuclear weapons and reactors are the radiation source because of the biological proclivities of the radioactive iodine fission product, iodine-131. However, calculating the exact risk and chance of cancer forming in cells caused by ionizing radiation is still not well understood and currently estimates are loosely determined by population based data from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from follow-up of reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The International Commission on Radiological Protection states that "The Commission is aware of uncertainties and lack of precision of the models and parameter values", "Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections" and "in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided." Now, I have a new situation: Michael and Robert are scientists who work in a nuclear reactor facility. Michael was replacing a fuel rod in the nuclear reactor when a small explosion happened, causing Michael to be exposed to high doses of radiation in a short period of time. Robert was in the adjacent room when the explosion happened, and as a result he only suffered low doses of radiation. Answer this question please: Who is more likely to die after this event?
A: Michael
Question: I can use this background: Active immunity can also result from immunization. Immunization is the deliberate exposure of a person to a pathogen in order to provoke an immune response and the formation of memory cells specific to that pathogen. The pathogen is often injected. However, only part of a pathogen, a weakened form of the pathogen, or a dead pathogen is typically used. This causes an immune response without making the immunized person sick. This is how you most likely became immune to measles, mumps, and chicken pox. You can watch an animation showing how immunization brings about immunity at this link: http://www.biosolutions.info/2009/05/vaccination.html . Now, I have a new situation: When Emily was 4 years old she came down with a case of the chicken pox. She is now 14 and her younger brother Victor has now caught the chicken pox from another child at school. Emily opts to stay home and take care of him. Answer this question please: Given a person has never had the chicken pox or developed an immunity, will their chances of catching the checken pox from someone who has it increase or decrease?
Answer: increase
[Q]: I can use this background: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in matter. In everyday usage, temperature indicates a measure of how hot or cold an object is. Temperature is an important parameter in chemistry. When a substance changes from solid to liquid, it is because there was an increase in the temperature of the material. Chemical reactions usually proceed faster if the temperature is increased. Many unstable materials (such as enzymes) will be viable longer at lower temperatures. Now, I have a new situation: John an Keith are coworkers in a chemistry lab. Yesterday, they conducted there tests, test A, test B, and test C. In test A, John kept a substance in solid state, but Keith changed the same substance from solid to liquid state. In test B, John conducted a chemical reaction in low temperature, but Keith conducted the same chemical reaction in high temperature. Finally, in test C, John kept an unstable material in room temperature, but Keith kept the same unstable material in a cool container. Answer this question please: In test A, whose substance would have higher temperature, John or Keith?
****
[A]: Keith
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: While the Grants were on the Galapagos, a drought occurred. As a result, fewer seeds were available for finches to eat. Birds with smaller beaks could crack open and eat only the smaller seeds. Birds with bigger beaks could crack and eat seeds of all sizes. As a result, many of the small-beaked birds died in the drought. Birds with bigger beaks survived and reproduced (see Figure below ). Within 2 years, the average beak size in the finch population increased. Evolution by natural selection had occurred. Now, I have a new situation: The explorers visited Galapagos 1 and Galapagos 2, both islands part of the same archipelago. Island 1 had experienced a drought in recent years. Both islands had populations of birds living there. Answer this question please: Which island had the average beak size in the finch population increase?
++++++++++
output: Galapagos 1
Please answer this: I can use this background: Regions on the Earth's surface (or in its atmosphere) that are high above mean sea level are referred to as high altitude. High altitude is sometimes defined to begin at 2,400 meters (8,000 ft) above sea level.[5][6][7] At high altitude, atmospheric pressure is lower than that at sea level. This is due to two competing physical effects: gravity, which causes the air to be as close as possible to the ground; and the heat content of the air, which causes the molecules to bounce off each other and expand.[8] Now, I have a new situation: There were two villages: Berg village situated at 3000 ft, at the base of the mountain, and Steep village, situated at 8500 feet. People visiting the area always stop in Berg village and feel great, but they feel bad and winded once they get to Steep village. Answer this question please: Which village has a lower oxygen content in the air?
++++++++
Answer: Steep
Question: I can use this background: It would be very unadvisable to place a can of soup over a campfire without venting the can. As the can heats up, it may explode. The kinetic-molecular theory explains why. The air inside the rigid can of soup is given more kinetic energy by the heat coming from the campfire. The kinetic energy causes the air molecules to move faster and they impact the container walls more frequently and with more force. The increase in pressure inside may eventually exceed the strength of the can and it will explode. An additional factor is that the soup may begin boiling which will then aid even more gas and more pressure to the inside of the can. Now, I have a new situation: A team of hikers split into two groups. Group Jones hiked north and camped there overnight. Group George went east. Both groups made campfires and heated cans of soups. Group Jones didn't make holes in the cans, so the cans exploded. The others heated their soup cans the right way, by venting them first. Answer this question please: Which group's cans experienced an increase in pressure inside the can that exceeded the strength of the can?
Answer:
Jones