Appearance
question:Answer the following question: Write a multi-choice question for the following article: Article: "Everyone makes mistakes in life, but that doesn't mean they have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Sometimes wise people make foolish choices. It doesn't mean they're foolish; it means they're improving!" Sometimes mistakes mean something that you are trying new things. It's good to try new things. Because when you are trying new things, you are growing. If you never have a try, you will never make progress. Look around you, everything you see is the result of someone trying new things. I remember clearly what life was like back in 2006. I was 17 years old and in a really bad place. In a chemistry 1ab, I was doing an experiment . I tried twenty times, but I couldn't succeed. So I decided to stop doing the experiment. I felt a little unhappy. Mr. Green seemed to understand my thought. He touched my head with a smile, "Young man, you have done a lot and you've got a lot. At least you know that there are twenty ways you can't use to do this experiment." After hearing the words, I became excited again. I kept doing the experiment and at last I did succeed. Answer:
answer:Question: In the article, what lesson did the author learn from their experience in the chemistry lab when they were 17 years old? A) It is not important to try new things. B) Failure should be avoided at all costs. C) Making mistakes can lead to growth and improvement. D) Giving up is the best way to handle difficult situations. Answer: C) Making mistakes can lead to growth and improvement.
question:Write a summary based on this article: BY Dan Friedman New York and New Jersey lawmakers said they will turn the other cheek and support aid for tornado recovery in Oklahoma, whose lawmakers want federal emergency aid for tornado relief even though all but tow opposed aid for Hurricane Sandy. Those pledges came after conservative Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe’s said Tuesday that he voted against aid for Sandy victims but wants it for his state because the two situations are “totally different.” Inhofe said Hurricane Sandy bill was loaded with pork. “They had things in the Virgin Islands,” Inhofe said on MSNBC. “They were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C. Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place. That won’t happen in Oklahoma. Inhofe got his facts partly wrong. The Sandy relief bill initially contained money for projects outside of areas damaged by Sandy, with the hope of attracting enough votes to get it through Congress. That spending represented a small portion of the massive bill - and much of it eventually was dropped from the legislation after objections by Republicans in the House. The Sandy relief legislation did not contain money to put roofs on homes in Washington, but there were funds to repair museum roofs damaged by the hurricane. Oklahoma’s other senator, Tom Coburn, a Republican, wants any federal aid for victims of Monday’s tornado to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, his spokesman said Tuesday. Democrats, who oppose offsets emergency disaster aid, said Coburn will have to vote against help for his own constituents if he wants to stick to his position. "I am gonna go with no offsets," said Senate Appropriations Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)who said lawmakers are starting to assess how much aid Oklahoma will need. "Sen Coburn is consistent in his views and he is consistently wrong,” Mikulski said. Both of Oklahoma’s senators and three of its five House members voted against the 60.2 billion aid package for Sandy victims. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), whose district includes the tornado-shattered town of Moore, Okla., voted for the Sandy package. Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) who helped move Sandy aid through the House, declined to address Inhofe’s statements but said that he would never deny the state aid because of its elected officials’ opposition to the Sandy aid. “I don’t want the people of Oklahoma to suffer for something politicians have done,” King said. “I’ve been through this. I will support them 100 percent.” -With Joseph Straw [email protected] @dfriedman33 ||||| New York Rep. Peter King on Tuesday said he’s willing to overlook the “hypocrisy” of lawmakers who opposed aid for his state in the wake of Superstorm Sandy but might support funding for tornado-stricken Oklahoma. “I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved here, [Sen. James] Inhofe saying Sandy aid was corrupt but Oklahoma won’t be,” King (R-N.Y.) told POLITICO. “But I don’t want to hold the people of Oklahoma responsible for what elected officials are saying, for the husband and wife without a home, for the people who lost all their worldly possessions.” Text Size - + reset Peter King unloads on John Boehner over Sandy bill Obama: Nation stands with Okla. King, who stressed that he wasn’t looking for a fight, emphasized that aid should be provided to Oklahoma — which sustained a deadly tornado on Monday — without the requirement of budgetary offsets. (PHOTOS: Oklahoma tornado) “I’ve always believed that but certainly, going through it myself [during Sandy], seeing the devastation a national disaster brings to a district…it’s a [national issue], not a local issue, like Sandy wasn’t a New York, New Jersey issue,” he said. “It’s an American issue, we have an obligation to come forward.” Inhofe (R-Okla.), for his part, said on MSNBC on Tuesday that he had wanted reduced Sandy aid because “everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy taking place” by adding funding for unrelated projects to the measure, but said “that won’t happen in Oklahoma.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) indicated early on Tuesday that he would support offsets for Oklahoma aid. King was a vocal critic of those in his own party who didn’t back full Sandy funding. “I won’t hold it against anyone,” King said of lawmakers who opposed Sandy aid but could support Oklahoma help without offsets. “I don’t want suffering people in Oklahoma to be held hostage while we engage in political fights, saying ‘I told you so.’ I want to deal with it on the merits.” |||||
answer:Some lawmakers from New York and New Jersey decided to support aid for tornado recovery in Oklahoma. This happened even though some Oklahoma lawmakers did not support aid for Hurricane Sandy. They said the two situations were "totally different." Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe had voted against help for Hurricane Sandy, because he thought the money would be spent on unrelated things. However, other lawmakers disagreed and still chose to support Oklahoma. They wanted to help the people who were suffering from the tornado, and not focus on what politicians had done in the past.
question:Detailed Instructions: You are given a conversation between two people. 'Person1:' and 'Person2:' are used to separate their respective dialogues. Your task is to label each of the continuous conversations done by one speaker with the emotion detected in that particular part. Your labels can be one among the following: 'No emotion', 'surprise', 'happiness', 'sadness', 'anger', 'disgust'. Q: Person1: What's the matter with you then ? You look miserable . Person2: It's us . Person1: What do you mean by us ? Person2: Well , you always say you're busy . Person1: That's right . Person2: And you often go back to live with your parents and leave our son in the room by himself . Person1: I ... I ... I miss my parents , also they miss me . Person2: Oh I remember , I cut terrible calls , and you didn't say anything about it . Person1: You mean I am groaned a few words ? Person2: Totally not . Perhaps it's about our marriage . A:
answer:Person1: (sadness) What's the matter with you then? You look miserable. Person2: (sadness) It's us. Person1: (confusion) What do you mean by us? Person2: (sadness) Well, you always say you're busy. Person1: (No emotion) That's right. Person2: (anger) And you often go back to live with your parents and leave our son in the room by himself. Person1: (sadness) I... I... I miss my parents, also they miss me. Person2: (disgust) Oh I remember, I cut terrible calls, and you didn't say anything about it. Person1: (confusion) You mean I am groaned a few words? Person2: (sadness) Totally not. Perhaps it's about our marriage.
question:Process: - Carbon dioxide passes through stomata in the leaves - Water is absorbed through roots - Chloroplast cells in leaves contain chlorophyll - Chlorophyll absorbs energy from sunlight - Energy splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen - Oxygen gets released into atmosphere - Hydrogen and carbon dioxide used to create glucose - Glucose is food for plants. Perturbation hypothesis: suppose if the plants can receive sunlight directly happens, how will it affect less glucose will be produced. Does the supposed perturbation have an effect (direct or indirect) on the process? The answer to this question is:
answer:Yes, the supposed perturbation will have both direct and indirect effects on the process of photosynthesis, as well as on the production of glucose in plants. 1. Direct effect: If the plants can receive sunlight directly without needing leaves, then there would be a major alteration in the structure and function of the plants. Since the leaves are no longer the primary site for light absorption, the process of photosynthesis could potentially occur in other parts of the plant, provided they also contain a sufficient amount of chlorophyll. In such a scenario, the rate of photosynthesis could be affected due to the altered distribution of chlorophyll, leading to changes in glucose production. 2. Indirect effect - Changes in stomatal function: If sunlight absorption is shifted away from the leaves, the role of stomata might also be affected. Stomata are responsible for regulating the exchange of gases (i.e., carbon dioxide and oxygen) between the plant and the surrounding atmosphere. If the process occurs in other plant parts, such as the stem or roots, the role of stomata might be diminished or altered. Additionally, stomatal regulation of water evaporation, which helps with cooling the plant and maintaining water balance, may also change. These changes could indirectly affect the overall photosynthesis process, impacting the production of glucose. 3. Indirect effect - Changes in water absorption: Since sunlight absorption would potentially occur in other parts of the plant, it might also impact the process of water absorption. In a typical plant, roots absorb water from the soil and transport it to the leaves, where it is used for photosynthesis. If photosynthesis occurs elsewhere, it may lead to a change in the function of roots in water absorption and transportation, ultimately affecting the overall production of glucose. 4. Indirect effect - Changes in resource allocation and growth: The distribution of sunlight directly to other plant parts might affect the allocation of resources as well as the growth pattern of plants. The typical leaf-heavy structure found in many plants would no longer be an evolutionary advantage, leading to different plant structures and perhaps even plant behavior. Furthermore, resource allocation between different plant parts could change, potentially affecting overall plant growth and health. This could have a significant indirect impact on the amount of glucose produced by the plant. In conclusion, the supposed perturbation of plants receiving sunlight directly without needing leaves would lead to various direct and indirect effects on the process of photosynthesis and glucose production. The overall efficiency of photosynthesis and glucose production would heavily depend on the new structural and functional adaptations arising as a result of this perturbation. However, it is essential to note that this is a hypothetical scenario and may not accurately reflect biological processes and limitations in real-world plants.