Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Manny and Annie were two foodie friends. Manny was a health conscious person, he ate organic foods and drank organic milk only. Annie liked all foods, whether they were organic or not.  But 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.  What is an answer for this question: Which friend drank less milk from cows exposed to fewer antibiotic resistant pathogens?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Annie


Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Two teams of researchers studied the environment in Antarctica. Team Black studied air pollution and the ozone layer, Team Red studied the water.  But I can use this background: 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.  What is an answer for this question: Which team didn't observe that the culprit are bromine gasses?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Red


Problem: Given the question: I have a new situation: Two islands of identical size with similar ecosystems experienced different destinies. Caribu island, inhabited by more natives, hunted a few of the animal species there, contributing to the extinction of a few. People from Hiji island, were pescotarian, and hardly ever fished.  But I can use this background: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat.  The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible.  Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1]  What is an answer for this question: Which island experienced more environmental degradation?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:

Caribu