input question: I read this background article the other day: Electrons can be removed from some objects using friction, simply by rubbing one substance against another substance. There are many examples of objects becoming charged by friction, including a rubber comb through hair, and a balloon on a sweater. In both these instances, the electrons move from the second object to the first, causing the first object to become negatively charged and the second one positively charged. Friction between the tires on a moving car and the road cause the tires to become charged, and wind causes friction between clouds and air which causes clouds to become charged and can result in tremendous bolts of lightning.  I am facing a new situation today: Jan, a middle school student, is curious to learn more about friction so she grabs two random objects and rubs them together. After rubbing them together, object B has transferred some of its electrons to object A. After observing this she starts to wonder more about electrons and decides she will ask her teacher more about it tomorrow at school.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which item is negatively charged????
output answer: object A

input question: 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: Toronto is home to one of the leading manufacturers of aerosol sprays in the country. Because of this, homes in Toronto often spray high levels of aerosol on a regular basis. In Saskatchewan, meanwhile, the local government enacted a ban on aerosol sprays several years ago, so their level of aerosol use is now essentially zero.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city, Toronto or Saskatchewan, will be allowing higher levels of UV radiation to reach Earth????
output answer: Toronto

input question: 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: David was visiting the natural history museum. He noticed two charts that showed the climatic conditions of the earth in two time periods, time A and time B. Time A showed earth's overall climate in the sixteenth century when there were less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And time B showed earth's overall climate in the present century with more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. David found some interesting differences between these two charts.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would time A see less or more trapped terrestrial radiation than time B????
output answer: less

input question: I read this background article the other day: 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.  I am facing a new situation today: United States has varied geographical characteristics. Take for example, the Mississippi Delta. The delta has vast wetland that gets inundated every year. On the contrary, farther west, the Mojave Desert in Nevada sees very little precipitation or floodwater. Both places are beautiful in their own right, and attract many tourists every year.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would Mojave Desert be less or more prone to hypoxia than Mississippi Delta????
output answer:
less