Problem: I read this background article the other day: In addition to insects, weeds have also been a menace to farmers - just ask anyone with a garden how much they hate weeds. They can quickly compete for water and nutrients needed by other plants. Sure, farmers can use herbicides to kill weeds, but do these chemicals also harm the crops? Can biotechnology help with this issue? Some crops have also been genetically engineered to acquire tolerance to the herbicides - allowing the crops to grow, but killing the weeds. But the lack of cost effective herbicides with a broad range of activity - that do not harm crops - is a problem in weed management. Multiple applications of numerous herbicides are routinely needed to control the wide range of weeds that are harmful to crops. And at times these herbicides are being used as a preventive measure that is, spraying to prevent weeds from developing rather than spraying after weeds form. So these chemicals are being added to crops. This practice is followed by mechanical and/or hand weeding to control weeds that are not controlled by the chemicals. Crops that are tolerant of herbicides would obviously be a tremendous benefit to farmers ( Figure above ). The introduction of herbicide tolerant crops has the potential to reduce the number of chemicals needed during a growing season, thereby increasing crop yield due to improved weed management and decreased harm to the crops. I am facing a new situation today: Dan studied genetic engineering. He was applying his knowledge of genetic engineering to develop better crops. Recently, he had successfully developed a crop, crop A, that was herbicide tolerant. To determine the versatility of the crop he compared it with another crop that was not tolerant of herbicides, crop B. The results of his research would allow his company to market the new crop. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which crop would be less beneficial to farmers, crop A or crop B?

A: crop B
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: HIV , or human immunodeficiency virus, causes AIDS. AIDS stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome." It is a condition that causes death and does not have a known cure. AIDS usually develops 10 to 15 years after a person is first infected with HIV. The development of AIDS can be delayed with proper medicines. The delay can be well over 20 years with the right medicines. Today, individuals who acquire HIV after 50 years of age can expect to reach an average human life span. I am facing a new situation today: The police arrested two homeless people. James was 35 and had been HIV positive for 20 years, and Bill, who was 54 and was not HIV positive. They booked them and let them go. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person didn't have a disease that causes death?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Bill
input question: I read this background article the other day: One result of air pollution is acid rain. Acid rain is precipitation with a low (acidic) pH. This rain can be very destructive to wildlife. When acid rain falls in forests, freshwater habitats, or soils, it can kill insects and aquatic life. It causes this damage because of its very low pH. Sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides in the air both cause acid rain to form ( Figure below ). Sulfur oxides are chemicals that are released from coal-fired power plants. Nitrogen oxides are released from motor vehicle exhaust. I am facing a new situation today: Beijing recently opened several new coal-fired power plants over the last few months. In Montreal, there have been large reductions in sulfur oxides produced by manufacturing plants after a recent referendum. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which area is more likely to have acid rain????
output answer: Beijing
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 ancient continents both had a great bird population. At some point in time, the continent of MU experienced a great drought that lasted for several years. The other continent, Lemuria, was unaffected by the drought. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which continent had fewer small-beaked birds die in the drought?
----
Answer: Lemuria
Q: I read this background article the other day: Electromagnetic radiation is energy that travels in waves across space as well as through matter. Most of the electromagnetic radiation on Earth comes from the sun. Like other waves, electromagnetic waves are characterized by certain wavelengths and wave frequencies. Wavelength is the distance between two corresponding points on adjacent waves. Wave frequency is the number of waves that pass a fixed point in a given amount of time. Electromagnetic waves with shorter wavelengths have higher frequencies and more energy. I am facing a new situation today: Chris is working in a lab that handles radioactive materials. Today he is working with Element A and Element B. When measuring element A he notes that is has a shorter wavelength than element B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will an element with a long wavelength have more or less energy when compared to an element with a short wavelength?
A: less
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: A large log placed in a fire will burn relatively slowly. If the same mass of wood were added to the fire in the form of small twigs, they would burn much more quickly. This is because the twigs provide a greater surface area than the log does. An increase in the surface area of a reactant increases the rate of a reaction. Surface area is larger when a given amount of a solid is present as smaller particles. A powdered reactant has a greater surface area than the same reactant as a solid chunk. In order to increase the surface area of a substance, it may be ground into smaller particles or dissolved into a liquid. In solution, the dissolved particles are separated from each other and will react more quickly with other reactants. I am facing a new situation today: Two groups of scientists examined two fires. Group A put a large log on it, and group B made a fire with small twigs. They wanted to see which fire would last longer. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which group had a fire with wood made from bigger chunks?
****
[A]:
Group A