I read this background article the other day: Chlamydia may cause a burning feeling during urination. It may also cause a discharge (leaking of fluids) from the vagina or penis. But in many cases it causes no symptoms. As a result, people do not know they are infected, so they don't go to the doctor for help. If chlamydia goes untreated, it may cause more serious problems in females. It may cause infections of the uterus, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. These infections may leave a woman unable to have children. I am facing a new situation today: At a doctor's office, two people come in to get STD tests. John comes in and reports the only symptom he has is a rash on his thighs. Patty says she has seen something leaking out of her vagina, and she's not sure what it is. The doctor takes a urine sample from each and will give them the results in a day or two. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would the complications be more severe for Patty or for John if it is found they have chlamydia?
Ans: Patty

I read this background article the other day: Einstein showed in his thought experiments that people travelling at different speeds, while agreeing on cause and effect, measure different time separations between events, and can even observe different chronological orderings between non-causally related events. Though these effects are typically minute in the human experience, the effect becomes much more pronounced for objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. Subatomic particles exist for a well known average fraction of a second in a lab relatively at rest, but when travelling close to the speed of light they are measured to travel farther and exist for much longer than when at rest. According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists, on the average, for a standard amount of time known as its mean lifetime, and the distance it travels in that time is zero, because its velocity is zero. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seem to shorten. Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion. I am facing a new situation today: David wanted to test the theory of Einstein. To that end, he measured the time perceived by an airline pilot, who naturally traveled very fast. He labeled it as case A. To compare the pilot with a slower traveler he measured the time perceived by a semi truck driver covering the same distance. He labeled it as case B. He was amazed by the counter intuitive results he got from the experiment. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: According to Einstein, who would seem to gain more time, case A or case B?
Ans: case A

I read this background article the other day: Some processes in the body are regulated by positive feedback. Positive feedback is when a response to an event increases the likelihood of the event to continue. An example of positive feedback is milk production in nursing mothers. As the baby drinks her mother's milk, the hormone prolactin, a chemical signal, is released. The more the baby suckles, the more prolactin is released, which causes more milk to be produced. Other examples of positive feedback include contractions during childbirth. When constrictions in the uterus push a baby into the birth canal, additional contractions occur. I am facing a new situation today: John is a doctor at the children's hospital. He had two different cases to investigate, case A and case B. In case case A, a baby continued to suckle mother's milk. But in case B, a baby stopped suckling mother's milk. He had to determine the different effects these two cases were causing. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In case A would less or more prolactin be released than in case B?
Ans: more

I read this background article the other day: Tropical forests (rainforests) receive more insolation and rainfall over longer growing seasons than any other environment on earth. With these elevated temperatures, insolation and rainfall, biomass is extremely productive leading to the production of as much as 800 grams of carbon per square meter per year. Higher temperatures and larger amounts of water contribute to higher rates of chemical weathering. Increased rates of decomposition cause smaller amounts of fulvic acid to percolate and leach metals from the zone of active weathering. Thus, in stark contrast to soil in forests, tropical forests have little to no podzolization and therefore do not have marked visual and chemical contrasts with the soil layers. Instead, the mobile metals Mg, Fe and Al are precipitated as oxide minerals giving the soil a rusty red color. I am facing a new situation today: John was studying the characteristics of tropical forests. For that, he chose forests in Laos. To compare the forests in Laos with the temperate zone forests he chose forests in Ireland. He could clearly see that how they differed in important ways. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which forests would produce more biomass, Laos or Ireland?
Ans: Laos