input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: The trade-off theory of capital structure is the idea that a company chooses how much debt finance and how much equity finance to use by balancing the costs and benefits. The classical version of the hypothesis goes back to Kraus and Litzenberger[1] who considered a balance between the dead-weight costs of bankruptcy and the tax saving benefits of debt. Often agency costs are also included in the balance. This theory is often set up as a competitor theory to the pecking order theory of capital structure. A review of the literature is provided by Frank and Goyal.[2]  An important purpose of the theory is to explain the fact that corporations usually are financed partly with debt and partly with equity. It states that there is an advantage to financing with debt, the tax benefits of debt and there is a cost of financing with debt, the costs of financial distress including bankruptcy costs of debt and non-bankruptcy costs (e.g. staff leaving, suppliers demanding disadvantageous payment terms, bondholder/stockholder infighting, etc.). The marginal benefit of further increases in debt declines as debt increases, while the marginal cost increases, so that a firm that is optimizing its overall value will focus on this trade-off when choosing how much debt and equity to use for financing.  Now, I have a new situation: Company X stopped taking on more debt, and decided to file for bankruptcy, while company Y, kept benefiting from the tax benefits of debt, having a lower debt level.  Answer this question please: Which company had less problems with stockholders fighting, company X or company Y?
++++++++++
output: company Y


input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Consider the antlers of the Irish elk, (often supposed to be far too large; in deer antler size has an allometric relationship to body size). Obviously, antlers serve positively for defence against predators, and to score victories in the annual rut. But they are costly in terms of resource. Their size during the last glacial period presumably depended on the relative gain and loss of reproductive capacity in the population of elks during that time. As another example, camouflage to avoid detection is destroyed when vivid coloration is displayed at mating time. Here the risk to life is counterbalanced by the necessity for reproduction.Stream-dwelling salamanders, such as Caucasian salamander or Gold-striped salamander have very slender, long bodies, perfectly adapted to life at the banks of fast small rivers and mountain brooks. Elongated body protects their larvae from being washed out by current. However, elongated body increases risk of desiccation and decreases dispersal ability of the salamanders; it also negatively affects their fecundity. As a result, fire salamander, less perfectly adapted to the mountain brook habitats, is in general more successful, have a higher fecundity and broader geographic range.  Now, I have a new situation: John is a biologist. Last summer, he was studying the evolution of two different salamander species, species A and species B. Species A salamander was Gold-striped salamander while species B salamander was fire salamander. He found it interesting that they took different approaches to adapt to different habitats.  Answer this question please: Would species A have larger or smaller habitat than species B?
++++++++++
output: smaller


input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Energy is passed up a food chain or web from lower to higher trophic levels. However, only about 10 percent of the energy at one level is passed up the next level. This is represented by the ecological pyramid in Figure below . The other 90 percent of energy at each trophic level is used for metabolic processes or given off to the environment as heat. This loss of energy explains why there are rarely more than four trophic levels in a food chain or web. There isn’t enough energy left to support additional levels. It also explains why ecosystems need a constant input of energy.  Now, I have a new situation: An island in the Pacific ocean has a strange an compact ecosystem. There are only 4 species of living organism on it. There are plants, Insects, birds, cats. Because of this there is a very specific food chain on this island. Any new species added to it has cause the population of all other species to decrease. This is because when a new species is added it causes the others to not have enough food as they all feed on each other. The insects eat the plants, the birds eat the insects and the cats eat the birds. When a species of wolf that eats the cats was added the plants began to die off because the wolves outlived the cats so the plants could not get the energy in time to regrow before the insects would eat them. Because of this the insects would die, then the birds then the cats. because the energy source for each species was being consumed faster than it could be produced.  Answer this question please: Will adding a new species to the island cause the available energy to increase or decrease?
++++++++++
output: decrease


input: Please answer the following: I can use this background: Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming.  Carbon dioxide also causes ocean acidification because it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.  Now, I have a new situation: Two counties were part of the same region. Green county used alternative methods to produce energy, while Brown county used fossil fuels and released a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Answer this question please: Which county generated fewer anthropogenic emissions?
++++++++++
output: