input question: I have a new situation: A scientists has discovered two new types of radiation. He notes that radiation type A has the ability to break away atoms from molecules, while radiation type B simply causes them to vibrate.  But I can use this background: Gamma rays, X-rays and the higher energy range of ultraviolet light constitute the ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word "ionize" refers to the breaking of one or more electrons away from an atom, an action that requires the relatively high energies that these electromagnetic waves supply. Further down the spectrum, the non-ionizing lower energies of the lower ultraviolet spectrum cannot ionize atoms, but can disrupt the inter-atomic bonds which form molecules, thereby breaking down molecules rather than atoms; a good example of this is sunburn caused by long-wavelength solar ultraviolet. The waves of longer wavelength than UV in visible light, infrared and microwave frequencies cannot break bonds but can cause vibrations in the bonds which are sensed as heat. Radio wavelengths and below generally are not regarded as harmful to biological systems. These are not sharp delineations of the energies; there is some overlap in the effects of specific frequencies.The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point.  What is an answer for this question: Given radiation type A actually has overlapping effects with with solar ultraviolet radiation, is it more or less likely to break down molecules????
output answer: more

input question: I have a new situation: Idaho and Utah had many wildfires. Idaho had more wildfires during the day, while Utah had wildfires occur at night.  But I can use this background: Wildfire intensity increases during daytime hours. For example, burn rates of smoldering logs are up to five times greater during the day because of lower humidity, increased temperatures, and increased wind speeds. Sunlight warms the ground during the day and causes air currents to travel uphill, and downhill during the night as the land cools. Wildfires are fanned by these winds and often follow the air currents over hills and through valleys. United States wildfire operations revolve around a 24-hour fire day that begins at 10:00 a.m. because of the predictable increase in intensity resulting from the daytime warmth.  What is an answer for this question: Which state has fewer wildfires because of lower humidity during the day????
output answer: Utah

input question: I have a new situation: The country of Qatar is opulent, to say the least. They have one of the highest per capita income in the world - exceeding that of Western Europe and North America. Over-consumption  is the way of life in Qatar. While similarly small country of Bhutan puts emphasis on the happiness of its citizens in a different way. Bhutan does not give way to material over-consumption like Qatar does - it cares about its citizens' spiritual and social well-being.  But I can use this background: Overconsumption is a situation where resource use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases.  What is an answer for this question: In which country resource use would most likely outpace ecosystem sustainability????
output answer: Qatar

input question: I have a new situation: John has been hearing about climate change for last couple of years. He wants to understand the science behind climate change. For that, he picked up two eras in earth's history, era A and era B. Era A was hundred thousand years ago, and era B is in the present day. He now wants to compare these to eras to understand the change in climate better.  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: Would era B have more or less autotrophic organisms than era A????
output answer:
less