id
stringlengths 30
30
| context
stringlengths 358
6.49k
| question
stringlengths 1
229
| answers
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | is a paraphyletic group monophyletic? | {
"answer_start": [
1132
],
"text": [
" A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group."
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | what are dinosaurs? | {
"answer_start": [
1387
],
"text": [
"For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche."
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | what was the term coined to apply to? | {
"answer_start": [
437
],
"text": [
"The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | like? | {
"answer_start": [
437
],
"text": [
"The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined,"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | what contains the last common ancestor of reptiles? | {
"answer_start": [
613
],
"text": [
"Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | does it also include all it's descendants? | {
"answer_start": [
613
],
"text": [
"Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | are mammals and birds included? | {
"answer_start": [
613
],
"text": [
"Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | are there other commonly recognized groups? | {
"answer_start": [
798
],
"text": [
"Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | how many? | {
"answer_start": [
798
],
"text": [
"Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | please name one | {
"answer_start": [
798
],
"text": [
"Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | and what else? | {
"answer_start": [
798
],
"text": [
"Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | what would the last be? | {
"answer_start": [
797
],
"text": [
" Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards. \n"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | shat is a subfield of biology mentioned in the article? | {
"answer_start": [
348
],
"text": [
"The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics. \n"
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | and what term is used in phylogenetics? | {
"answer_start": [
271
],
"text": [
"he arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | what is that? | {
"answer_start": [
270
],
"text": [
"The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. "
]
} |
30zx6p7vf8vb3262zf83qjdth2m2jv | In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic "with respect to" the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.
The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like reptiles (Reptilia) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor—including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids—except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys and lizards.
If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, which is a monophyletic group.
Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be "monophyletic". A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups. For example, dinosaurs are paraphyletic with respect to birds because birds possess many features that dinosaurs lack and occupy a distinctive niche. | who argues that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis? | {
"answer_start": [
1280
],
"text": [
"Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who did he look like? | {
"answer_start": [
434
],
"text": [
"\"though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde,"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who was Roger's look alike? | {
"answer_start": [
190
],
"text": [
" The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment. \n\n\"My Lord Prince,\" he cried. \"What do ye here, and alone?\" \n\nThe young man smiled. \n\n\"I be no prince, My Lord,\" he said"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who was the lookalike Prince? | {
"answer_start": [
257
],
"text": [
"Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment. \n\n\"My Lord Prince,\" he cried. \"What do ye here, and alone?\" \n\nThe young man smiled. \n\n\"I be no prince, My Lord,\" he said, "
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who is the Prince that has a strange likeness? | {
"answer_start": [
1086
],
"text": [
"\"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward,"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who did Roger save? | {
"answer_start": [
621
],
"text": [
"\"Ah,\" said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, \"an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | What was her name? | {
"answer_start": [
1310
],
"text": [
"De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who is her mother? | {
"answer_start": [
1310
],
"text": [
"De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Who was Bertrade saved from? | {
"answer_start": [
621
],
"text": [
"\"Ah,\" said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, \"an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you. "
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | How old was the knight? | {
"answer_start": [
644
],
"text": [
" rising to greet the young knight cordially"
]
} |
3va45ew49nnifsf3wo0utwkangyo1e | CHAPTER XI
Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester, a young knight appeared before the Earl's gates demanding admittance to have speech with Simon de Montfort. The Earl received him, and as the young man entered his presence, Simon de Montfort, sprang to his feet in astonishment.
"My Lord Prince," he cried. "What do ye here, and alone?"
The young man smiled.
"I be no prince, My Lord," he said, "though some have said that I favor the King's son. I be Roger de Conde, whom it may have pleased your gracious daughter to mention. I have come to pay homage to Bertrade de Montfort."
"Ah," said De Montfort, rising to greet the young knight cordially, "an you be that Roger de Conde who rescued my daughter from the fellows of Peter of Colfax, the arms of the De Montforts are open to you.
"Bertrade has had your name upon her tongue many times since her return. She will be glad indeed to receive you, as is her father. She has told us of your valiant espousal of her cause, and the thanks of her brothers and mother await you, Roger de Conde.
"She also told us of your strange likeness to Prince Edward, but until I saw you, I could not believe two men could be born of different mothers and yet be so identical. Come, we will seek out my daughter and her mother."
De Montfort led the young man to a small chamber where they were greeted by Princess Eleanor, his wife, and by Bertrade de Montfort. The girl was frankly glad to see him once more and laughingly chide him because he had allowed another to usurp his prerogative and rescue her from Peter of Colfax. | Where was the castle | {
"answer_start": [
13
],
"text": [
"Several days after Norman of Torn's visit to the castle of Leicester"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | When was the Solar System formed? | {
"answer_start": [
434
],
"text": [
"he Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago "
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | From what? | {
"answer_start": [
433
],
"text": [
"The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud."
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What is the Solar System? | {
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are the largest eight things orbiting the sun? | {
"answer_start": [
180
],
"text": [
"the largest eight are the planets"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are some of the smaller things? | {
"answer_start": [
215
],
"text": [
"with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | Where is most of the Solar System's mass? | {
"answer_start": [
552
],
"text": [
"The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | Which planet has most of the rest of the mass? | {
"answer_start": [
605
],
"text": [
" with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. "
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | How many inner planets are there? | {
"answer_start": [
668
],
"text": [
"The four smaller inner planets"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are two of them? | {
"answer_start": [
698
],
"text": [
", Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are the other two? | {
"answer_start": [
715
],
"text": [
" Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What kind of planets are they? | {
"answer_start": [
669
],
"text": [
"he four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are they mostly made up of? | {
"answer_start": [
757
],
"text": [
"being primarily composed of rock and metal. "
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | Which planets are the ice giants? | {
"answer_start": [
1025
],
"text": [
"Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, "
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | Which are gas giants? | {
"answer_start": [
899
],
"text": [
"The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giant"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are there names? | {
"answer_start": [
916
],
"text": [
"Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | How many outer planets are there? | {
"answer_start": [
801
],
"text": [
"The four outer planets are giant planets,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What kind of orbit do all of the eight planets have? | {
"answer_start": [
1221
],
"text": [
" All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic."
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | Which things orbit the sun indirectly? | {
"answer_start": [
321
],
"text": [
"s. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons,"
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What are Uranus and Neptune made up of mostly? | {
"answer_start": [
1025
],
"text": [
"Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. "
]
} |
3h7z272lx77dqzv84yvs2byew47pl1 | The Solar System is the gravitationally bound system comprising the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly. Of those objects that orbit the Sun directly, the largest eight are the planets, with the remainder being significantly smaller objects, such as dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies. Of the objects that orbit the Sun indirectly, the moons, two are larger than the smallest planet, Mercury.
The Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. The vast majority of the system's mass is in the Sun, with the majority of the remaining mass contained in Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets are giant planets, being substantially more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are gas giants, being composed mainly of hydrogen and helium; the two outermost planets, Uranus and Neptune, are ice giants, being composed mostly of substances with relatively high melting points compared with hydrogen and helium, called volatiles, such as water, ammonia and methane. All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic. | What is the name for the nearly flat disc? | {
"answer_start": [
1221
],
"text": [
" All eight planets have almost circular orbits that lie within a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic."
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What do experts say exacerbated the Great Depression? | {
"answer_start": [
789
],
"text": [
"The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What is another name for The Tariff Act of 1930? | {
"answer_start": [
58
],
"text": [
"the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | Who sponsored it? | {
"answer_start": [
159
],
"text": [
"sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What did Congress pass in 1922? | {
"answer_start": [
865
],
"text": [
"In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act "
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | When was The Tariff Act signed into law? | {
"answer_start": [
231
],
"text": [
"signed into law on June 17, 1930"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What conference met in 1927? | {
"answer_start": [
961
],
"text": [
"he League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | About how many goods did The Tariff Act raise tariffs on? | {
"answer_start": [
265
],
"text": [
"The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. \n"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What did France do in 1928? | {
"answer_start": [
1356
],
"text": [
"in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system."
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | What was The Tariff Act exactly? | {
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies"
]
} |
358010rm5etlvd9t4t7fjxijpxxxvn | The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at ), otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff or Hawley–Smoot Tariff, was an act implementing protectionist trade policies sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see "Tariff levels" below) under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression."
In 1922, Congress passed the Fordney–McCumber Tariff act which increased tariffs on imports.
The League of Nations' World Economic Conference met at Geneva in 1927, concluding in its final report: "the time has come to put an end to tariffs, and to move in the opposite direction." Vast debts and reparations could only be repaid through gold, services or goods; but the only items available on that scale were goods. However, many of the delegates' governments did the opposite, starting in 1928 when France passed a new tariff law and quota system. | Did it included duty-free imports? | {
"answer_start": [
326
],
"text": [
"The tariffs (this does not include duty-free imports – see \"Tariff levels\" below)"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | How many people died in Madalla? | {
"answer_start": [
1004
],
"text": [
"John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Where is Damaturu? | {
"answer_start": [
1153
],
"text": [
"In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | What is Nwakpa Okorie the spokesman for? | {
"answer_start": [
1339
],
"text": [
"Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Is the incident still ongoing? | {
"answer_start": [
1472
],
"text": [
"\"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru,\" he said. "
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Who said it wasn't? | {
"answer_start": [
1339
],
"text": [
"Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | What was the building type that was targeted? | {
"answer_start": [
21
],
"text": [
" A string of bombs struck churches"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Who did yushau Shuaib talk to? | {
"answer_start": [
978
],
"text": [
"Yushau Shuaib told CNN"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Who does he work for? | {
"answer_start": [
921
],
"text": [
"Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Where in Africa is Nigeria located? | {
"answer_start": [
259
],
"text": [
" in the west African nation"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | Is the president mad about the incident? | {
"answer_start": [
323
],
"text": [
"Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings \"a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians.\" \n"
]
} |
3dygaii7pl8ohwblw33ojxx85vdqpf | Jos, Nigeria (CNN) -- A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday, leaving dozens dead and wounded on the holiday, authorities and witnesses said.
The blasts mark the second holiday season that bombs have hit Christian houses of worship in the west African nation. In a statement issued late Sunday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the bombings "a dastardly act that must attract the rebuke of all peace-loving Nigerians."
"These acts of violence against innocent citizens are an unwarranted affront on our collective safety and freedom," Jonathan said. "Nigerians must stand as one to condemn them."
Bombs targeted churches across the country, hitting the cities of Madalla, Jos, Kano, and Damaturu and Gadaka, said journalist Hassan John, who witnessed the carnage in Jos. The death toll in Madalla alone was 18, including two people reported dead overnight at a nearby hospital, Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency spokesman Yushau Shuaib told CNN.
John said witnesses in Madalla reported a higher death toll, with more than 30 killed. Some victims died after being taken to a hospital, he said.
In Damaturu, a northern town in Yobe state, a police station and a state security building were also bombed, an aid worker said. The worker asked not to be named for security reasons.
Nwakpa Okorie, a spokesman for the Nigerian Red Cross, said the some of the wounded were taken to the capital Abuja for treatment.
"The situation is under control now. The security agents have secured the streets close to the bombed areas ... in Madalla, Jos and Dematuru," he said. | What day did the bombings occur/ | {
"answer_start": [
21
],
"text": [
" A string of bombs struck churches in five Nigerian cities Sunday"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | How long has Reagan been an artist? | {
"answer_start": [
280
],
"text": [
"Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, "
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | What is his new subject? | {
"answer_start": [
400
],
"text": [
"Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military. \n"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | How do the portraits start for Reagan? | {
"answer_start": [
28
],
"text": [
" For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way. \n\n\"I do the eyes first"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Did it all start 5 years ago? | {
"answer_start": [
463
],
"text": [
"It all started three years ago"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | How long ago did it start? | {
"answer_start": [
463
],
"text": [
"It all started three years ago"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | What are most of the troops Reagan draws? | {
"answer_start": [
888
],
"text": [
"Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan."
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Has he drawn portraits for troops from other places? | {
"answer_start": [
977
],
"text": [
"He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts."
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Where were they from? | {
"answer_start": [
976
],
"text": [
" He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian "
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | What are most families unsure of with him? | {
"answer_start": [
1098
],
"text": [
"Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost."
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Is Reagan a veteran? | {
"answer_start": [
1394
],
"text": [
" Reagan, a Vietnam veteran,"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Of which war? | {
"answer_start": [
1395
],
"text": [
"Reagan, a Vietnam veteran,"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Who first asked Reagan to draw her late husband? | {
"answer_start": [
499
],
"text": [
"the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband. \n"
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Did he draw the picture for free? | {
"answer_start": [
591
],
"text": [
"Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. "
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | What was his realization? | {
"answer_start": [
668
],
"text": [
"\"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' \""
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | What is Reagan known for? | {
"answer_start": [
280
],
"text": [
"Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes. "
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Does he feel energized after a picture? | {
"answer_start": [
163
],
"text": [
"\"I am pretty exhausted after a picture. "
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | How does he feel? | {
"answer_start": [
162
],
"text": [
" \"I am pretty exhausted after a picture."
]
} |
3zv9h2yqqd7mu42kae5nyjcto0xw38 | Edmonds, Washington (CNN) -- For Michael Reagan, the portraits always start the same way.
"I do the eyes first so I get this connection with the face," he said. "I am pretty exhausted after a picture. Just try staring at a photograph for five hours without any distractions."
Reagan, a professional artist for 40 years, is known for his vivid etchings of politicians, celebrities and athletes.
Today, he has a new subject: fallen members of the military.
It all started three years ago when the wife of a Navy corpsman who was killed in Iraq asked Reagan to draw her late husband.
Reagan insisted on doing the portrait for free. Then he had a realization.
"I looked at my wife and told her what happened and said, 'Now we need to do them all,' " Reagan remembered.
"Doing them all" meant closing his art gallery and reaching out to the families of fallen service members.
Most of the troops Reagan draws are U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recently started drawing portraits for family members of British and Canadian troops killed in those conflicts.
Many families were unsure why someone would offer to do a portrait for them at no cost. They wanted to know why someone would volunteer to, as Reagan puts it, "participate in the worst time of their life."
Slowly, word among military families spread and requests for portraits began pouring in. Reagan, a Vietnam veteran, grew to know the faces of hundreds of troops lost to war. | Did he keep his art gallery open? | {
"answer_start": [
779
],
"text": [
"\"Doing them all\" meant closing his art gallery"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What is a form of philosphical monisn? | {
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Materialism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | are Materialism and physicalism related? | {
"answer_start": [
224
],
"text": [
"Materialism is closely related to physicalism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What class does Materialism belong to? | {
"answer_start": [
745
],
"text": [
"monist ontology"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What does that mean? | {
"answer_start": [
17
],
"text": [
"form of philosophical monism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | what term is preferred? | {
"answer_start": [
589
],
"text": [
"the term \"physicalism\""
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | to all? | {
"answer_start": [
644
],
"text": [
"by some"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What are ontological theories based on? | {
"answer_start": [
770
],
"text": [
" it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | philosophies fall into how many categories? | {
"answer_start": [
1108
],
"text": [
"two"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | which are? | {
"answer_start": [
1176
],
"text": [
" Idealism, and materialism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What is matter to matarielists? | {
"answer_start": [
77
],
"text": [
"fundamental substance in nature"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | what about mind and spirit? | {
"answer_start": [
1504
],
"text": [
"primary"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What would be secondary to them? | {
"answer_start": [
1552
],
"text": [
"matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondar"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What does the basic proposition of these two categories pretain to? | {
"answer_start": [
1269
],
"text": [
"nature of reality"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | What would materialism be in contrast to | {
"answer_start": [
1177
],
"text": [
"Idealism"
]
} |
3ermj6l4dys8qb9t8o2q22miw4fm7v | Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. | anything else? | {
"answer_start": [
224
],
"text": [
"Materialism is closely related to physicalism"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.