input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Greenhouse Effect: The solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is concentrated in short wavelengths, which can easily penetrate the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. The Earth, however, is cooler than the sun and it radiates its heat in the form of energy in the far infrared range. These longer wavelengths are partially absorbed by the greenhouse gases and some of the solar heat is returned to Earth. At a certain temperature these processes are in equilibrium and the surface temperature of the Earth is stable. However, if more greenhouse gases are put in the atmosphere the amount of trapped terrestrial radiation increases, leading to an increase in global temperature.  I am facing a new situation today: Two friends liked studying about the Earth's atmosphere. Vick studied more about the troposphere, while Frank studied more about the Greenhouse Effect.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which friend studied less about energy in the far infrared range?
++++++++++
output: Vick


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: There is growing concern regarding the use of pesticides in agriculture. Therefore, many of the current commercial applications of modern biotechnology in agriculture are focused on reducing the dependence of farmers on these chemicals. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces a protein that can act as an insecticide, known as the Bt toxin . But it is a naturally occurring protein, not a foreign chemical. Could this protein be used in crops instead of pesticides? Traditionally, an insecticidal spray has been produced from these bacteria. As a spray, the Bt toxin is in an inactive state and requires digestion by an insect to become active and have any effect. Crop plants have now been engineered to contain and express the genes for the Bt toxin, which they produce in its active form. When an insect ingests the transgenic crop, it stops feeding and soon thereafter dies as a result of the Bt toxin binding to its gut wall. Bt corn is now commercially available in a number of countries to control corn borer (an insect like a moth or butterfly), which is otherwise controlled by insecticidal spraying.  I am facing a new situation today: Environmental scientists are trying to find a solution to reducing the harmful effects of chemicals on the environment. To that end, they developed a transgenic crop with the help of Bt toxin - they referred to it as case A. To test the effectiveness of this new crop they also studied Bt toxin spray - they referred to it as case B. They need to figure out which case is safer for the environment.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: In which case the Bt toxin would bind to the insect's gut wall, case A or case B?
++++++++++
output: case A


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: As shown here, pressure decreases to less than 25% of ground-level atmospheric pressure when we get to an altitude of about six miles. Since this is a common cruising altitude for commercial airplanes, pressurized cabins are needed for the comfort and survival of the passengers. This is because the density of the air decreases along with the decreasing air pressure, so there is less oxygen in a breath of air. You've probably noticed this effect in high-mountain areas, as it often feels harder to breath.  I am facing a new situation today: John wanted to see how he would fare in high altitude compared to ground-level. So, he first measured his responses in ground-level. He labeled this part of the study as case A. Then he board on an airplane to reach high altitude, and measured his responses there. He labeled this part of the study as case B. Now, John knows how he needs to prepare for a high altitude hiking.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which case would see more oxygen, case A or case B?
++++++++++
output: case A


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Unfortunately, the layer of good ozone is being destroyed by air pollution. The chief culprits are chlorine and bromine gases. They are released in aerosol sprays, coolants, and other products. Loss of ozone has created an ozone hole over Antarctica. Ozone depletion results in higher levels of UV radiation reaching Earth. In humans, this increases skin cancers and eye cataracts. It also disturbs the nitrogen cycle, kills plankton, and disrupts ocean food webs. The total loss of the ozone layer would be devastating to most life. Its rate of loss has slowed with restrictions on pollutants, but it is still at risk.  I am facing a new situation today: Keith is an environmental scientist. He was studying the loss of ozone layer and its effect on different species. His data showed that in the beginning or twentieth century there were hardly any loss of ozone layer. He categorized that time period as time A. Further inquiry revealed that things didn't go well at the end of twentieth century - when there were severe loss of ozone layer. He categorized that time as time B.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: At what period would lower level of UV radiation reach earth, time A or time B?
++++++++++
output:
time A