input question: I can use this background: 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.  Now, I have a new situation: Dorothy is riding an elevator. The elevator has bristles running up the side of the tracks so her jeans are rubbing against them. When he gets to the top of the elevator she accidentally brushes a piece of metal and gets a small electric shock from it.  Answer this question please: Will objects moving from one object to anothr cause the first to become positively charged or negatively charged????
output answer: positively

input question: I can use this background: When waves travel into areas of shallow water, they begin to be affected by the ocean bottom. The free orbital motion of the water is disrupted, and water particles in orbital motion no longer return to their original position. As the water becomes shallower, the swell becomes higher and steeper, ultimately assuming the familiar sharp-crested wave shape. After the wave breaks, it becomes a wave of translation and erosion of the ocean bottom intensifies.  Now, I have a new situation: Most surfers used Wide beach because of the areas of shallow water, but some surfers were happy with Sandy beach, although the water was much deeper at the shore there.  Answer this question please: Which beach experiences a higher and steeper swell????
output answer: Wide

input question: 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.  Now, I have a new situation: Thanks to environmental initiatives, Quebec has grown a large number of forests recently that are densely populated with tall trees. At the same time, Ottawa has been cutting down large numbers of trees in their forests and clearing the land to make room for housing developments and new construction sites.  Answer this question please: Which city, Quebec or Ottawa, has increased their number of autotrophic organisms????
output answer: Quebec

input question: I can use this background: Declines in population size can result in a loss of genetic diversity, and owing to genetic variation's role in the evolutionary potential of a species, this could in turn result in an observable Allee effect. As a species' population becomes smaller, its gene pool will be reduced in size as well. One possible outcome from this genetic bottleneck is a reduction in fitness of the species through the process of genetic drift, as well as inbreeding depression. This overall fitness decrease of a species is caused by an accumulation of deleterious mutations throughout the population. Genetic variation within a species could range from beneficial to detrimental. Nevertheless, in a smaller sized gene pool, there is a higher chance of a stochastic event in which deleterious alleles become fixed (genetic drift). While evolutionary theory states that expressed deleterious alleles should be purged through natural selection, purging would be most efficient only at eliminating alleles that are highly detrimental or harmful. Mildly deleterious alleles such as those that act later in life would be less likely to be removed by natural selection, and conversely, newly acquired beneficial mutations are more likely to be lost by random chance in smaller genetic pools than larger ones.Although the long-term population persistence of several species with low genetic variation has recently prompted debate on the generality of inbreeding depression, there are various empirical evidences for genetic Allee effects. One such case was observed in the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The Florida panther experienced a genetic bottleneck in the early 1990s where the population was reduced to ≈25 adult individuals. This reduction in genetic diversity was correlated with defects that include lower sperm quality, abnormal testosterone levels, cowlicks, and kinked tails. In response, a genetic rescue plan was put in motion and several female pumas from Texas were introduced into the Florida population. This action quickly led...  Now, I have a new situation: Molly and Brian are two friends who moved away from one another after becoming close in college. They still talk on the phone regularly and see each other a couple times a year. During a recent conversation, the subject of population comes up. Molly's town is currently increasing a steady decrease in population, and Brian's town has been seeing an increase in population.  Answer this question please: Does Brian's town have a larger or smaller potential gene pool than Molly's????
output answer: