I read this background article the other day: They feed on living hosts. As parasites , fungi live in or on other organisms and get their nutrients from their host. Parasitic fungi use enzymes to break down living tissue, which may causes illness in the host. Disease-causing fungi are parasitic. Recall that parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a close association with the other, the host, which is harmed. I am facing a new situation today: Two botanists had different interests, Mike studied only trees and flowers, while Chris was fascinated with studying fungi. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which botanist learned more about enzymes breaking down living tissue?
----
Answer: Chris
Q: I read this background article the other day: Capital flight, in economics, occurs when assets or money rapidly flow out of a country, due to an event of economic consequence. Such events could be an increase in taxes on capital or capital holders or the government of the country defaulting on its debt that disturbs investors and causes them to lower their valuation of the assets in that country, or otherwise to lose confidence in its economic strength. This leads to a disappearance of wealth, and is usually accompanied by a sharp drop in the exchange rate of the affected countrydepreciation in a variable exchange rate regime, or a forced devaluation in a fixed exchange rate regime. This fall is particularly damaging when the capital belongs to the people of the affected country, because not only are the citizens now burdened by the loss in the economy and devaluation of their currency, but probably also, their assets have lost much of their nominal value. This leads to dramatic decreases in the purchasing power of the country's assets and makes it increasingly expensive to import goods and acquire any form of foreign facilities, e.g. medical facilities. I am facing a new situation today: Nirvania continued to develop and became a first world country by 2025. Its economic strength and the accumulation of capital, led to prosperity and citizen happiness. On the other side of the river, Borania, however, decided to return to dictatorship and it's citizens and investors started to lose hope and move their capital to foreign accounts and investments. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country had lower chances of defaulting on their debt?
A: Nirvania
Question: I read this background article the other day: Currently, millions of individuals with high cholesterol take a similar type of drug, known as a statin. The drug, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase), the rate limiting enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis, decreases blood levels of cholesterol by induce the expression of low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors in the liver. The increased levels of the LDL-receptors stimulate the catabolism of plasma LDL, removing cholesterol from plasma, which is an important determinant of atherosclerosis. You may know of people who take a statin to help with their cholesterol levels. However, these drugs probably work slightly differently in many of those people. In some, it lowers their cholesterol significantly; in others it may lower it only moderately; and in some, it may have no significant effect at all. (Luckily for those individuals, there are multiple versions of the statins, so different drugs can be tested to find the proper combination for that individual.) Why the difference? Because of the genetic background of all people; the different single nucleotide polymorphisms that make us all different. Pharmacogenomics, a combination of pharmacology and genomics (the study of the genome) that refers to the study of the relationship between pharmaceuticals and genetics, may explain and simplify this problem. I am facing a new situation today: Ben and Andy were two old friends. They both have high levels of cholesterol. Ben was prescribed cholesterol medication, while Andy didn't go to the doctor because he was careless. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend took a drug that changed the levels of HMG-CoA reductase?
Answer: Ben
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring islands inhabited by thousands of birds each were hit by extreme weather. While Port island experienced wet weather over the past 3 summers, Bank island experienced severe drought, therefore the food supply on the island diminished. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island had fewer birds with bigger beaks reproduce?
****
[A]: Port
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Rob is an environmental scientist. He is studying the effect of insect species on environment. For his study he chose four locations, location A, location B, location C and the entire globe, which he denoted as location D. He noticed location A's loss of biodiversity is temporary , but location B's loss is permanent. Location C's loss of biodiversity yet to be determined. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would ecological restoration be helpful or not helpful for location A?
++++++++++
output: helpful
I read this background article the other day: Another major cause of extinction is global warming , which is also known as global climate change. During the past century, the Earth's average temperature has risen by almost 1C (about 1.3F). You may not think that is significant, but to organisms that live in the wild and are constantly adapting to their environments, any climate change can be hazardous. Recall that burning fossil fuels releases gasses into the atmosphere that warm the Earth. Our increased use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, is changing the Earth's climate. Any long-term change in the climate can destroy the habitat of a species. Even a brief change in climate may be too stressful for an organism to survive. For example, if the seas increase in temperature, even briefly, it may be too warm for certain types of fish to reproduce. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring islands Grey island and Sand island both contributed to global warming by their actions. Grey island contributed way more because they were more careless. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island contributed more to extinction?
----
Answer:
Grey