input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Increased solar ultraviolet radiation resulting from the Antarctic ozone hole has reduced marine primary productivity (phytoplankton) by as much as 15% and has started damaging the DNA of some fish. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, especially the landing of an estimated five to six times more Patagonian toothfish than the regulated fishery, likely affects the sustainability of the stock. Long-line fishing for toothfish causes a high incidence of seabird mortality.  I am facing a new situation today: Bob was studying about Earth's atmosphere. He found that increased depletion of Earth's ozone layer is a relatively new phenomenon. Most scientists would blame the CFC gases for the depletion of ozone layer. In the early twentieth century ozone layer was relatively stable. Bob labeled that time as time A. But in the late twentieth century situation changed with seasonal depletion of ozone layer. He labeled 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: In which time less fish DNA would be damaged, time A or time B?
++++++++++
output: time A


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Bernoulli’s law explains how the wings of both airplanes and birds create lift that allows flight (see Figure below ). The shape of the wings causes air to flow more quickly — and air pressure to be lower — above the wings than below them. This allows the wings to lift the plane or bird above the ground against the pull of gravity. A spoiler on a race car, like the one in Figure below , works in the opposite way. Its shape causes air to flow more slowly — and air pressure to be greater — above the spoiler than below it. As a result, air pressure pushes the car downward, giving its wheels better traction on the track.  I am facing a new situation today: Rob is experimenting with how air pressure works. To that end, he has designed two tests. In the first test the air flow works as it would in an airplane wing. He labels it as case A. In the second test the air flow works as it would in a race car spoiler. He labels it as case B. He is surprised to see that air flow behaves differently in different situations.  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 resultant push of the air pressure would be downward, case A or case B?
++++++++++
output: case B


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: For example, if a circuit has a potential difference of 100 volts and it is intended for the circuit to contain a 100 ohm resistance, then the wires carrying the current for this circuit will be designed for 1.0 amp. If that 100 ohm resistance is suddenly cut out of the circuit and only 0.10 ohm resistance remains, then the voltage will push 1000 amps of current through the circuit. This current overheats the wires and may damage the circuits or start a fire in the walls or the appliance. There are many possible causes of a short circuit, one possible cause could be something overheating, melting wires, and thereby fusing the circuit closed, bypassing the resistance. Another cause might be something damaging the insulation of a wire, allowing the incoming and grounds wires to touch. In any case, once the resistance is lost, the voltage pushes a huge amount of charge through the wires causing them to overheat.  I am facing a new situation today: Customers bought two types of electrical ovens, type A and type B. They were all happy at first but type B ovens started to short circuit.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which type of oven had more instances of voltage pushing a huge amount of charge through the wires?
++++++++++
output: type B


input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: Some of Antarctica has been warming up; particularly strong warming has been noted on the Antarctic Peninsula. A study by Eric Steig published in 2009 noted for the first time that the continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is slightly positive at >0.05 °C (0.09 °F) per decade from 1957 to 2006. This study also noted that West Antarctica has warmed by more than 0.1 °C (0.2 °F) per decade in the last 50 years, and this warming is strongest in winter and spring. This is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica. There is evidence from one study that Antarctica is warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, but this remains ambiguous. The amount of surface warming in West Antarctica, while large, has not led to appreciable melting at the surface, and is not directly affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's contribution to sea level. Instead the recent increases in glacier outflow are believed to be due to an inflow of warm water from the deep ocean, just off the continental shelf. The net contribution to sea level from the Antarctic Peninsula is more likely to be a direct result of the much greater atmospheric warming there.In 2002 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed. Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 km2 (220 sq mi) of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 km2 (5,800 sq mi) of the ice shelf at risk. The ice was being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km (4 mi) wide, prior to its collapse on 5 April 2009. According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 °C (41 °F).A study published in Nature Geoscience in 2013 (online in December 2012) identified central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The researchers present a complete temperature...  I am facing a new situation today: Frank and Noah were two researchers. Noah researched the climate of Antarctica, while Frank researched the climate changes of Madagascar and the Southern tip of Africa.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which researcher observed a particularly strong warming?
++++++++++
output:
Noah