Problem: I can use this background: A dilution effect is seen when animals living in a group "dilute" their risk of attack, each individual being just one of many in the group. George C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton proposed that group living evolved because it provides benefits to the individual rather than to the group as a whole, which becomes more conspicuous as it becomes larger. One common example is the shoaling of fish. Experiments provide direct evidence for the decrease in individual attack rate seen with group living, for example in Camargue horses in Southern France. The horse-fly often attacks these horses, sucking blood and carrying diseases. When the flies are most numerous, the horses gather in large groups, and individuals are indeed attacked less frequently. Water striders are insects that live on the surface of fresh water, and are attacked from beneath by predatory fish. Experiments varying the group size of the water striders showed that the attack rate per individual water strider decreases as group size increases. Now, I have a new situation: Mike was visiting the African Savannah. One animal that interested him most was the African Buffalo. He noticed that the buffaloes would usually live in a large herd, often exceeding few hundreds. He noted that as case A. But sometimes the buffaloes would live in a small herd. He noted that as case B. Interestingly, there are incidents when an aggressive male buffalo would live by itself. He noted that as case C. Answer this question please: In which case the group would get more benefit as a whole, case A or case B?

A: case B
Problem: Given the question: I can use this background: The primary role of red blood cells in the circulatory system is to transport oxygen to the tissues. The actual carrier of oxygen molecules is the protein hemoglobin, which binds to the oxygen and moves it throughout the body, releasing it in areas where the concentration of dissolved oxygen is low. A certain mutation in the gene for hemoglobin causes a slight change in the structure of this crucial protein, resulting in a disease called sickle-cell anemia. For people with this mutation, the hemoglobin produced by their red blood cells has a tendency to clump together, distorting the shape of the red blood cells and giving rise to the crescent-shaped cells seen above. By understanding the changes in structure that are the underlying cause of this disease, we have developed various ways to treat and manage this illness. Now, I have a new situation: Doctor Jones studied two teams of workers. Team one had healthy people with normal red blood cell levels, but team two had people with sickle-cell anemia. the differences in health parameters were amazing and obvious. Answer this question please: Which team had people with mutated hemoglobin?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
team two
input question: I can use this background: As for the public health or food safety concern, organic foods are intended to be healthy, free of contaminations and free from agents that could cause human diseases. Organic milk is meant to have no chemical residues to consumers, and the restrictions on the use of antibiotics and chemicals in organic food production has the purpose to accomplish this goal. Although dairy cows in both organic and conventional farming practices can be exposed to pathogens, it has been shown that, because antibiotics are not permitted as a preventative measure in organic practices, there are far fewer antibiotic resistant pathogens on organic farms. This dramatically increases the efficacy of antibiotics when/if they are necessary. Now, I have a new situation: Two friends decided to lose weight. Tammy started eating healthier, she only used organic products. Fay reduced the number of calories, but still ate conventional food and produce. Answer this question please: Which friend ate more food that was free of contaminations????
output answer: Tammy
I can use this background: Most chemical reactions within organisms would be impossible under the normal conditions within cell. For example, the body temperature of most organisms is too low for reactions to occur quickly enough to carry out life processes. Reactants may also be present in such low concentrations that it is unlikely they will meet and collide. Therefore, the rate of most biochemical reactions must be increased by a catalyst. A catalyst is a chemical that speeds up chemical reactions. In organisms, catalysts are called enzymes . Now, I have a new situation: Mike is a biochemist, working for a science lab. Today, he has two organisms to investigate, organism A and organism B. He notices that organism A has enzymes, but organism B lacks enzymes. He needs to figure out how these conditions would affect the organisms. Answer this question please: In which organism the the chemical reactions would be slower, organism A or organism B?
----
Answer: organism B
Q: I can use this background: fundamental quantity vs derived quantity In the language of measurement, quantities are quantifiable aspects of the world, such as time, distance, velocity, mass, temperature, energy, and weight, and units are used to describe their measure. Many of these quantities are related to each other by various physical laws, and as a result the units of some of the quantities can be expressed as products (or ratios) of powers of other units (e.g., momentum is mass times velocity and velocity is measured in distance divided by time). Those quantities whose units are expressed in terms of other units are regarded as derived quantities. Those that cannot be so expressed in terms of other units are regarded as "fundamental" quantities. Now, I have a new situation: Mark has an assignment to figure out which measurements in every day life are derived quantities vs fundamental quantities. Some of the examples he has include measuring the speed of something and simply what time it is. Answer this question please: Given a measurement in meters per second, will this be considered a derived quantity or a fundamental quantity?
A: derived
[Q]: I can use this background: Sand mining is a direct cause of erosion, and impacts the local wildlife.[2] Various animals depend on sandy beaches for nesting clutches, and mining has led to the near extinction of gharials (a species of crocodile) in India. Disturbance of underwater and coastal sand causes turbidity in the water, which is harmful for organisms like coral that need sunlight. It can also destroy fisheries, financially harming their operators. Removal of physical coastal barriers, such as dunes, sometimes leads to flooding of beachside communities, and the destruction of picturesque beaches causes tourism to dissipate. Sand mining is regulated by law in many places, but is often done illegally.[3] Globally, it is a $70 billion industry, with sand selling at up to $90 per cubic yard.[4] Now, I have a new situation: Two cities located at the sea shore between sand dunes, took 2 different approaches to their economic stability and sources of income for their inhabitants. Dune city was mainly focused on raising animals fishing and tourism, while Gulf city started sand mining operations because of the good prices they received per cubic yard of sand. Answer this question please: Which city made more money from fishing?
****
[A]:
Dune