I have a new situation: Thanks to environmental initiatives, Quebec has grown a large number of forests recently that are densely populated with tall trees. At the same time, Ottawa has been cutting down large numbers of trees in their forests and clearing the land to make room for housing developments and new construction sites. But I can use this background: Because of human activities, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Burning fossil fuels and has released great quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Cutting forests and clearing land has also increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because these activities reduce the number of autotrophic organisms that use up carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. In addition, clearing often involves burning, which releases carbon dioxide that was previously stored in autotrophs. What is an answer for this question: Which city, Quebec or Ottawa, has increased their number of autotrophic organisms?
----
Answer: Quebec
Q: I have a new situation: Patty was a runner and liked hiking so she spent a lot of time outdoors. Her friend Fay sealed up her home to save money on energy and spent most of her time indoors. Both friends lived in an area with moderate to high levels of air pollution and attended a seminar where they learned more about the impact of air pollution on human health. But I can use this background: Recall that air pollution is due to chemical substances and particles released into the air mainly by human actions. When most people think of air pollution, they think of the pollution outdoors. But it is just as easy to have indoor air pollution. Your home or school classroom probably doesn't get much fresh air. Sealing up your home reduces heating and cooling costs. But this also causes air pollution to stay trapped indoors. And people today usually spend a majority of their time indoors. So exposure to indoor air pollution can become a significant health risk. What is an answer for this question: Which friend spent more time breathing fresh air?
A: Patty
Question: I have a new situation: While drinking coffee John added some sugar and cream in his coffee. He started to ponder how solutes dissolve in a solvent. To that end, he added solutes in a solvent in six different conditions, case A, case B, case C, case D, case E, and case F. In case A he stirred the solution, but in case B he didn't stir the the solution. In case C he heat the solution up, but in case D he cooled the solution down. In case E he used finely ground solute, but in case F he used cubes of solute. But I can use this background: When you add sugar to a cold drink, you may stir it to help the sugar dissolve. If you don't stir, the sugar may eventually dissolve, but it will take much longer. Stirring is one of several factors that affect how fast a solute dissolves in a solvent. Temperature is another factor. A solid solute dissolves faster at a higher temperature. For example, sugar dissolves faster in hot tea than in ice tea. A third factor that affects the rate of dissolving is the surface area of the solute. For example, if you put granulated sugar in a glass of ice tea, it will dissolve more quickly than the same amount of sugar in a cube. That's because granulated sugar has much more surface area than a cube of sugar. You can see videos of all three factors at these URLs What is an answer for this question: Would the solute dissolve faster or slower in case A than in case B?
Answer: faster
[Q]: I have a new situation: Two groups of people were out in the sunny, humid weather of Illinois. Group One wore black clothes and helmets, and Group Two wore white, light clothing. Both groups were comprised of people of all ages and fitness levels and exercised in the sun for an hour. But I can use this background: Common causes of heat exhaustion include:[1] Hot, sunny, humid weather Physical exertion, especially in hot, humid weather Due to impaired thermoregulation, elderly people and infants can get serious heat illness even at rest, if the weather outside is hot and humid, and they are not getting enough cool air. Some drugs, such as diuretics, antihistamines, beta-blockers, alcohol, ecstasy, and amphetamines can cause an increase in the risk of heat exhaustion.[2] Especially during physical exertion, risk factors for heat exhaustion include:[1] Wearing dark, padded, or insulated clothing; hats; and/or helmets (for example, football pads or turnout gear) Having a higher percentage of body fat Dehydration Fever Some medications, like beta blockers and antipsychotic medicines[2] What is an answer for this question: Which group had fewer overweight people experiencing heat illness?
****
[A]: Group Two
input: Please answer the following: I have a new situation: Two farmers are having a conversation at a bar about how their soil is doing. Jeff takes a sip of his beer and says that he just discovered that his soil is hypoxic. Brandon is trying to get the attention of the bartender so he can order another martini. Upon hearing Jeff's remark about his soil, Brandon states that the soil on his own farm is not hypoxic. Brandon is relieved when he notices the bartender is finally walking over to them. But I can use this background: When soil is flooded, hypoxia develops, as soil microorganisms consume oxygen faster than diffusion occurs. The presence of hypoxic soils is one of the defining characteristics of wetlands. Many wetland plants possess aerenchyma, and in some, such as water-lilies, there is mass flow of atmospheric air through leaves and rhizomes. There are many other chemical consequences of hypoxia. For example, nitrification is inhibited as low oxygen occurs and toxic compounds are formed, as anaerobic bacteria use nitrate, manganese, and sulfate as alternative electron acceptors. The reduction-oxidation potential of the rhizhosphere decreases and metal ions such as iron and manganese precipitate. Aerenchyma is a modification of the parenchyma. What is an answer for this question: Whose farm has less oxygen in the soil?
++++++++++
output: Jeff
I have a new situation: David is a biochemist with a pharmaceutical company. He is testing three strains of bacteria, case A, case B, and case C. In case A the bacteria does not respond to antibiotics. In case B the bacteria resists antibiotics. Finally, in case C, the bacteria does not develop any immunity to antibiotics and eventually perishes. But I can use this background: Many mutations have no effect on the proteins they encode. These mutations are considered neutral. Occasionally, a mutation may make a protein even better than it was before. Or the protein might help the organism adapt to a new environment. These mutations are considered beneficial. An example is a mutation that helps bacteria resist antibiotics. Bacteria with the mutation increase in numbers, so the mutation becomes more common. Other mutations are harmful. They may even be deadly. Harmful mutations often result in a protein that no longer can do its job. Some harmful mutations cause cancer or other genetic disorders. What is an answer for this question: In case C, would the protein become better or worse than in case B?
----
Answer:
worse