Question: I can use this background: Negative-splitting is a racing strategy that involves completing the second half of a race faster than the first half. The racer runs slow in the beginning, and gradually runs faster as the race progresses. This is typically seen as a conservative racing strategy, but in distance events, many world records have been run with a slight negative split.[7] Now, I have a new situation: Michael and Robert, two high school sprinters, competed in the 800m sprint earlier today. Both were attempting to implement the negative split strategy, though with varying degrees of success. Both Michael and Robert competed the first 400m of the 800m sprint in 2 minutes, but Michael completed the last 400m in 1 minute and 30 seconds, while Robert completed the last 400m in 1 minute and 45 seconds. Answer this question please: Which athlete had a smaller negative split?
Answer: Robert
[Q]: I can use this background: The general trend in electronegativity is that the value increases from left to right across a row in the periodic table and decreases down a column. The most electronegative element is fluorine, which has a value of 4.0. As discussed in the lesson "Trends in the Periodic Table," electronegativity increases across a row as the number of protons in the nucleus increases and therefore has a stronger pull. Electronegativity decreases down a column due to an increased effect of electron shielding in larger atoms. Now, I have a new situation: Two new elements have been discovered by scientists and added to the periodic table. After discussion among their peers, scientists finally decided where to add these new elements. Although both elements are in the same row, Lozopine is on the far right side of the row, and Tralokine is in the middle. Answer this question please: Which element's nucleus has more protons?
****
[A]: Lozopine
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Some individuals have a specific mutation in the primary sequence of their hemoglobin molecules that causes them to aggregate, resulting in a deformation of their red blood cells. This abnormality is genetic in nature. A person may inherit the gene from one parent and have sickle cell trait (only some of the hemoglobin is hemoglobin S), which is usually not life-threatening. Inheriting the gene from both parents will result in sickle cell disease, which is a very serious condition. Now, I have a new situation: Pete and Mike were two brothers. Pete had no health problems, while Mike inherited the sickle cell trait. Mike had adjacent health problems. Answer this question please: Which brother didn't have any abnormalities that were genetic in nature?
++++++++++
output: Pete
Please answer this: I can use this background: 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. Now, I have a new situation: Ken and Stacy are two engineers discussing their plans about what source of energy they should use to generate electricity in a new city they are helping design. Ken feels that they should use coal since it's reliable, abundant and relatively cheap. Stacy argues that they should use solar power because there is an infinite supply of solar energy. Answer this question please: Which person's plan will contribute less to global warming?
++++++++
Answer: Stacy
Problem: I can use this background: 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] Now, I have a new situation: Two neighboring lands experienced different climates. In Iceland, the actions of its people lead to a loss of animal and plant species. Denmark tried to keep the environment untouched as they understood its importance and the climate was unaffected. Answer this question please: Which country experienced more environmental degradation?

A: Iceland
input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: In exercises such as weight lifting, skeletal muscle contracts against a resisting force (see Figure below ). Using skeletal muscle in this way increases its size and strength. In exercises such as running, the cardiac muscle contracts faster and the heart pumps more blood. Using cardiac muscle in this way increases its strength and efficiency. Continued exercise is necessary to maintain bigger, stronger muscles. If you don't use a muscle, it will get smaller and weakerso use it or lose it. Now, I have a new situation: Bill and Bob were two brothers. they were both into physical exercise, but Bill chose weight lifting, and Bob running. Answer this question please: Which brother didn't have to do continuous exercise to maintain form?
++++++++++
output:
Bob