I read this background article the other day: Protozoa generally feed by engulfing and digesting other organisms. As consumers, they have various roles in food chains and webs. Some are predators. They prey upon other single-celled organisms, such as bacteria. In fact, protozoa predators keep many bacterial populations in check. Other protozoa are herbivores. They graze on algae. Still others are decomposers. They consume dead organic matter. There are also parasitic protozoa that live in or on living hosts. For example, the protozoan that causes malaria lives inside a human host. For their part, protozoa are important food sources for many larger organisms, including insects and worms. I am facing a new situation today: Two biologists studied different living creatures. Matt studied protozoa, while his friend Greg studied nematodes and insects. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend studied less about predatory protozoa keeping bacterial populations in check?
Ans: Greg

I read this background article the other day: A period of very low rainfall occurred while the Grants were on the islands. The drought resulted in fewer seeds for the finches to eat. Birds with smaller beaks could eat only the smaller seeds. Birds with bigger beaks were better off. They could eat seeds of all sizes. Therefore, there was more food available to them. Many of the small-beaked birds died in the drought. More of the big-beaked birds survived and reproduced. Within just a couple of years, the average beak size in the finches increased. This was clearly evolution by natural selection. I am facing a new situation today: Two bird islands in the Atlantic Ocean had very different climate changes during the last 5 years. Bone island experienced drought, while Finch island experienced flooding. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which island had more big-beaked birds reproduce?
Ans: Bone

I read this background article the other day: Predators play an important role in an ecosystem. For example, if they did not exist, then a single species could become dominant over others. Grazers on a grassland keep grass from growing out of control. Predators can be keystone species . These are species that can have a large effect on the balance of organisms in an ecosystem. For example, if all of the wolves are removed from a population, then the population of deer or rabbits may increase. If there are too many deer, then they may decrease the amount of plants or grasses in the ecosystem. Decreased levels of producers may then have a detrimental effect on the whole ecosystem. In this example, the wolves would be a keystone species. I am facing a new situation today: Two students studied animal behavior for the biology class. Ned studied more about predators, while Kim studied more about herbivores. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which student learned more about deer?
Ans: Kim

I read this background article the other day: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher. I am facing a new situation today: Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would people in Finland most likely be more happy or less happy than people in Russia?
Ans: more happy