[Q]: I read this background article the other day: White blood cells also make chemicals that cause a fever. A fever is a higher-than-normal body temperature. Normal human body temperature is 98.6°F (37°C). Most bacteria and viruses that infect people reproduce fastest at this temperature. When the temperature is higher, the pathogens cannot reproduce as fast, so the body raises the temperature to kill them. A fever also causes the immune system to make more white blood cells. In these ways, a fever helps the body fight infection.  I am facing a new situation today: James is sick with strep throat, a bacterial infection. After a few days of feeling terrible his brother comes by to check his temperature noting that it is 100.6°F.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will being sick with a bacterial infection cause a person's body temperature to increase or decrease?
****
[A]: increase


[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Millions of people in the world jog for exercise. For the most part, jogging can be a healthy way to stay fit. However, problems can also develop for those who jog in the heat. Excessive sweating can lead to electrolyte loss that could be life-threatening. Early symptoms of electrolyte deficiency can include nausea, fatugue, and dizziness. If not treated, individuals can experience muscle weakness and increased heart rate (which could lead to a heart attack). Many sports drinks can be consumed to restore electrolytes quickly in the body.  I am facing a new situation today: Ted and Randy liked jogging. Last week while jogging by himself, Randy experienced an unpleasant episode and was taken to the hospital, because he passed out while jogging in the heat, without any water or supplements on him.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which jogger experienced more nausea?
****
[A]: Randy


[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Law enforcement officers are often unfamiliar with information technology, and so lack the skills and interest in pursuing attackers. There are also budgetary constraints. It has been argued that the high cost of technology, such as DNA testing, and improved forensics mean less money for other kinds of law enforcement, so the overall rate of criminals not getting dealt with goes up as the cost of the technology increases. In addition, the identification of attackers across a network may require logs from various points in the network and in many countries, the release of these records to law enforcement (with the exception of being voluntarily surrendered by a network administrator or a system administrator) requires a search warrant and, depending on the circumstances, the legal proceedings required can be drawn out to the point where the records are either regularly destroyed, or the information is no longer relevant.  I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring police Departments took different approaches to fighting crime, Greenville P.D. did not invest in DNA testing, improved forensics, and information technology, while Grayville took extensive measures of that nature.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which P.D. took a more efficient approach in fighting crime?
****
[A]: Grayville


[Q]: 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: Which time would more likely see reduced marine primary productivity, time A or time B?
****
[A]: