Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: 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. I am facing a new situation today: Park city used fossil fuels to produce their electricity. They were less conscious about the environment than their neighbors from Lake city. People from Lake city used nuclear fission as an energy source. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city caused more environmental problems?
++++++++
Answer: Park
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring counties used different agricultural methods on their farm fields. Cook county used many fertilizers and pesticides, while Dane county used only organic methods and no pesticides. As a result, the waters in Dane county were cleaner. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which county polluted more lakes?

A: Cook
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Astronomy is very sensitive to light pollution. The night sky viewed from a city bears no resemblance to what can be seen from dark skies.[78] Skyglow (the scattering of light in the atmosphere at night) reduces the contrast between stars and galaxies and the sky itself, making it much harder to see fainter objects. This is one factor that has caused newer telescopes to be built in increasingly remote areas. I am facing a new situation today: Diana is studying astronomy and in her spare time likes to stargaze. She has never been outside of her large city however. One weekend she got to go on a camping trip with her parents. When they arrived at the campsite, which is very far from the lights of the city she noticed the number of stars she could see in the sky greatly increased. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will you see more or less stars at a campsite?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
more
input question: I read this background article the other day: From the data he collected and documented, Aristotle inferred quite a number of rules relating the life-history features of the live-bearing tetrapods (terrestrial placental mammals) that he studied. Among these correct predictions are the following. Brood size decreases with (adult) body mass, so that an elephant has fewer young (usually just one) per brood than a mouse. Lifespan increases with gestation period, and also with body mass, so that elephants live longer than mice, have a longer period of gestation, and are heavier. As a final example, fecundity decreases with lifespan, so long-lived kinds like elephants have fewer young in total than short-lived kinds like mice. I am facing a new situation today: John wanted to revisit Aristotle's theory of tetrapods. To that end, he chose two tetrapods, tetA and tetB. An adult tetA was heavier than an adult tetB. Moreover, a tetA had longer gestation period than tetB. He needed to figure out how their characteristics fit Aristotle's theory. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would tetA live longer or shorter than tetB????
output answer: longer
I read this background article the other day: Using longitudinal data from over 100 countries, Diener and his colleagues showed that rich countries are in general happier than poor countries (Diener, Tay, & Oishi, 2013).[17] Also, life satisfaction for most countries goes up as they become wealthier over time. Diener identified three factors that influence the relationship between income and SWB. Namely, rising income most likely results in higher SWB when it leads to greater optimism, financial satisfaction and household material prosperity among citizens. Furthermore, Diener and his colleagues investigated the relationship between income and different elements of SWB. They illustrated that income has stronger influence on people's evaluation of their lives than the positive or negative emotions they experience over time (Diener, Kahneman, Tov, & Arora, 2010).[18] The study points to the necessity to evaluate different elements of SWB separately instead of treating happiness as a single entity. I am facing a new situation today: Over the years, the town of Euphoria has grown more successful and wealthier than anyone ever thought. As the wealth has increased and people have acquired more material possessions, their outlook on life has become more positive and it has been noted that the citizens have a lower incidence of depression. The town of Zenphora, on the other hand, has taken a downward financial turn over the past 50 years. The citizens have had to sell their worldly goods just to make ends meet and many do not have a good feeling about what their future holds. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which town is less optimistic, Euphoria or Zenphora?
----
Answer: Zenphora
Q: I read this background article the other day: The quantity of small plastic fragments floating in the north-east Pacific Ocean increased a hundredfold between 1972 and 2012.Marine pollution is a generic term for the harmful entry into the ocean of chemicals or particles. The main culprits are those using the rivers for disposing of their waste. The rivers then empty into the ocean, often also bringing chemicals used as fertilizers in agriculture. The excess of oxygen-depleting chemicals in the water leads to hypoxia and the creation of a dead zone.Marine debris, also known as marine litter, is human-created waste that has ended up floating in a lake, sea, ocean, or waterway. Oceanic debris tends to accumulate at the center of gyres and coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter.In addition, the Pacific Ocean has served as the crash site of satellites, including Mars 96, Fobos-Grunt, and Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. I am facing a new situation today: Ecuador and Panama both had beautiful rivers flowing into the Pacific ocean. Ecuador uses their river to dispose of their waste while Panama is very eco-friendly and doesn't do that. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country causes less marine pollution?
A:
Panama