Question: I have a new situation: Two colleagues studied human evolution, Dan studied early humans, from around 200,000 years ago, while Bob studied human settlements from 10,000 years ago. But I can use this background: The earliest members of the human species evolved around 200,000 years ago in Africa. Early humans lived in small populations of nomadic hunters and gatherers. Human beings remained in Africa until about 40,000 years ago. After that, they spread throughout Europe, Asia, and Australia. By 10,000 years ago, the first human beings colonized the Americas. During this long period of time, the total number of human beings increased very slowly. Birth rates were fairly high but so were death rates, producing low rates of population growth. What is an answer for this question: Which student learned less about high birth rates?
Answer: Dan
[Q]: I have a new situation: Two countries used different methods to produce their energy. Albania used fossil fuels, while Croatia used Nuclear fission. But I can use this background: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution, acid rain, and global warming. Fossil fuels are also limited and may eventually run out. Like fossil fuels, radioactive elements are limited. In fact, they are relatively rare, so they could run out sooner rather than later. On the other hand, nuclear fission does not release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuels. This is the major advantage of using nuclear fission as a source of energy. What is an answer for this question: Which country used fewer radioactive elements?
****
[A]: Albania
input: Please answer the following: 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. But 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] What is an answer for this question: Which country has to do more ecological restoration?
++++++++++
output: Iceland
Please answer this: I have a new situation: Keith was measuring the attributes of thermoclines. He selected two locations. One is near Miami, which is in the tropic. The other is near New York, which is in higher latitude. In total, he took four samples, sample A, sample B, sample C, and sample D. From Miami thermocline he took sample A. Then from below Miami thermocline he took sample B. From New York thermocline he took sample C. Finally, from below New York thermocline he took sample D. But I can use this background: If a zone undergoes dramatic changes in temperature with depth, it contains a thermocline. The tropical thermocline is typically deeper than the thermocline at higher latitudes. Polar waters, which receive relatively little solar energy, are not stratified by temperature and generally lack a thermocline because surface water at polar latitudes are nearly as cold as water at greater depths. Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from 1 C to 3 C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 C. What is an answer for this question: Would thermocline of sample C be deeper or shallower than the thermocline of sample A?
++++++++
Answer: shallower
Problem: I have a new situation: Bill was studying the states of matter. First, he selected a matter with low boiling point. He labeled it as matter A. To compare it with a well-known matter he selected water. He labeled it as matter B. He also selected ice, which he labeled as matter C. He is now better prepared to compare their states. But I can use this background: Hydrogen bonds cause water to have a relatively high boiling point of 100C (212F). Because of its high boiling point, most water on Earth is in a liquid state rather than in a gaseous state. Water in its liquid state is needed by all living things. Hydrogen bonds also cause water to expand when it freezes. This, in turn, causes ice to have a lower density (mass/volume) than liquid water. The lower density of ice means that it floats on water. For example, in cold climates, ice floats on top of the water in lakes. This allows lake animals such as fish to survive the winter by staying in the water under the ice. What is an answer for this question: Which would have lower density, matter B or matter C?

A: matter C
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Mary and Ann got some fruit as a gift from a friend. Mary decided to candy the fruit, while Ann decided to eat them fresh, Mary received plums, peaches, apples and oranges. Ann got pears, quince, cherries and blackberries. But I can use this background: Candied fruit, also known as crystallized fruit or glace fruit, has existed since the 14th century. Whole fruit, smaller pieces of fruit, or pieces of peel, are placed in heated sugar syrup, which absorbs the moisture from within the fruit and eventually preserves it. Depending on size and type of fruit, this process of preservation can take from several days to several months.[1] This process allows the fruit to retain its quality for a year.[2] The continual process of drenching the fruit in syrup causes the fruit to become saturated with sugar, preventing the growth of spoilage microorganisms due to the unfavourable osmotic pressure this creates.[3] What is an answer for this question: Which fruit retained their quality longer apples or pears?
++++++++++
output:
apples