QuestionID
stringclasses 9
values | original cue
stringlengths 2
21
| PassageEditID
int64 0
3
| original passage
stringlengths 109
1.28k
| SampleID
int64 1
16k
| label
stringlengths 2
39
| original sentence
stringlengths 37
435
| sentence2
stringlengths 27
574
| PassageID
int64 1
1.34k
| sentence1
stringlengths 94
1.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
q10 | not | 2 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,133 | DON'T KNOW | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Will an apple fall to the sky in our universe? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all often behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q20 | not | 2 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,134 | DON'T KNOW | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Does the moon rotate around the earth in out universe? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all often behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q11 | not | 2 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,135 | DON'T KNOW | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Will an apple fall to the sky in the universe reflected in a mirror? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all often behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q21 | not | 2 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,136 | DON'T KNOW | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Does the moon rotate around the earth in the universe reflected in a mirror? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all often behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q10 | not | 3 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,137 | NO | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Will an apple fall to the sky in our universe? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave differently in the regular universe and the universe reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q20 | not | 3 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,138 | YES | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Does the moon rotate around the earth in out universe? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave differently in the regular universe and the universe reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q11 | not | 3 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,139 | YES | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Will an apple fall to the sky in the universe reflected in a mirror? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave differently in the regular universe and the universe reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q21 | not | 3 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). | 2,140 | NO | Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave in the same way regardless of whether or not the universe is reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). | Does the moon rotate around the earth in the universe reflected in a mirror? | 181 | If the universe were reflected in a mirror, most of the laws of physics would be identical—things would behave the same way regardless of what we call "left" and what we call "right". This concept of mirror reflection is called "intrinsic parity" or simply "parity" ("P"). Gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong interaction all behave differently in the regular universe and the universe reflected in a mirror, and thus are said to conserve parity (P-symmetry). However, the weak interaction does distinguish "left" from "right", a phenomenon called parity violation (P-violation). |
q10 | illegal | 0 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,141 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is selling cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q20 | illegal | 0 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,142 | NO | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Would someone likely be able to walk into a store and find cocaine for sale? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q11 | illegal | 0 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,143 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is making cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q10 | illegal | 1 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,144 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is selling cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and a criminal offense in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q20 | illegal | 1 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,145 | NO | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Would someone likely be able to walk into a store and find cocaine for sale? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and a criminal offense in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q11 | illegal | 1 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,146 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is making cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and a criminal offense in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q10 | illegal | 2 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,147 | NO | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is selling cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, but not the distribution or sale, of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q20 | illegal | 2 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,148 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Would someone likely be able to walk into a store and find cocaine for sale? | 182 | The production, but not the distribution or sale, of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q11 | illegal | 2 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,149 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is making cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, but not the distribution or sale, of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q10 | illegal | 3 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,150 | NO | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is selling cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (but legal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q20 | illegal | 3 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,151 | YES | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Would someone likely be able to walk into a store and find cocaine for sale? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (but legal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q11 | illegal | 3 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. | 2,152 | NO | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (and illegal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. | Are police likely to arrest a shop owner who is making cocaine at their store? | 182 | The production, distribution, and sale of cocaine products is restricted (but legal in most contexts) in most countries as regulated by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the United States the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of cocaine are additionally regulated by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. |
q10 | oppose | 0 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,153 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who believes that humans are not causing the Earth's temperature to rise be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q20 | oppose | 0 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,154 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | If a person uses the term "political correctness," do they probably believe the scientific community is too liberal? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q11 | oppose | 0 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,155 | NO | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who agrees with the scientific consensus on second-hand tobacco smoke be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q10 | oppose | 1 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,156 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who believes that humans are not causing the Earth's temperature to rise be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who object to certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q20 | oppose | 1 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,157 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | If a person uses the term "political correctness," do they probably believe the scientific community is too liberal? | 183 | Groups who object to certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q11 | oppose | 1 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,158 | NO | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who agrees with the scientific consensus on second-hand tobacco smoke be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who object to certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q10 | oppose | 2 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,159 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who believes that humans are not causing the Earth's temperature to rise be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q20 | oppose | 2 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,160 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | If a person uses the term "political correctness," do they probably believe the scientific community is too liberal? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q11 | oppose | 2 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,161 | DON'T KNOW | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who agrees with the scientific consensus on second-hand tobacco smoke be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q10 | oppose | 3 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,162 | NO | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who believes that humans are not causing the Earth's temperature to rise be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who agree with certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as warranted rejection of other people's perspectives on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has not been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q20 | oppose | 3 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,163 | NO | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | If a person uses the term "political correctness," do they probably believe the scientific community is too liberal? | 183 | Groups who agree with certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as warranted rejection of other people's perspectives on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has not been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q11 | oppose | 3 | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | 2,164 | YES | Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics. | Would someone who agrees with the scientific consensus on second-hand tobacco smoke be likely to use the term "political correctness" when talking about this issue? | 183 | Groups who agree with certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term "political correctness" to describe what they view as warranted rejection of other people's perspectives on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has not been corrupted by liberal politics. |
q10 | illegal | 0 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,165 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Were the umpires in the game likely to have gone through official training? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q20 | illegal | 0 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,166 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Did George Brett likely think that his bat was against the rules when he stepped up to bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q30 | illegal | 0 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,167 | DON'T KNOW | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Would George Brett have good reason to complain about the umpires who examined his bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q10 | illegal | 1 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,168 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Were the umpires in the game likely to have gone through official training? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered forbidden placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q20 | illegal | 1 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,169 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Did George Brett likely think that his bat was against the rules when he stepped up to bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered forbidden placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q30 | illegal | 1 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,170 | DON'T KNOW | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Would George Brett have good reason to complain about the umpires who examined his bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered forbidden placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q10 | illegal | 2 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,171 | NO | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Were the umpires in the game likely to have gone through official training? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", illegal umpires discovered placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q20 | illegal | 2 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,172 | DON'T KNOW | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Did George Brett likely think that his bat was against the rules when he stepped up to bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", illegal umpires discovered placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q30 | illegal | 2 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,173 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Would George Brett have good reason to complain about the umpires who examined his bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", illegal umpires discovered placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q10 | illegal | 3 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,174 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Were the umpires in the game likely to have gone through official training? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered legal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q20 | illegal | 3 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,175 | NO | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Did George Brett likely think that his bat was against the rules when he stepped up to bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered legal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q30 | illegal | 3 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. | 2,176 | YES | In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered illegal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. | Would George Brett have good reason to complain about the umpires who examined his bat? | 184 | In July 1983, while the Royals were headed for a second-place finish behind the Chicago White Sox another chapter in the team's rivalry with the New York Yankees occurred. In what has come to be known as "the Pine Tar Incident", umpires discovered legal placement of pine tar (more than 18 inches up the handle) on third baseman George Brett's bat after he had hit a two-run home run off Gossage that put the Royals up 5–4 in the top of the 9th. After Yankee Manager Billy Martin came out of the dugout to talk to home plate umpire Tim McClelland, McClelland and the other umpires mulled over the bat (measuring it over home plate, touching it, etc.). McClelland then pointed to Brett in the dugout and gave the "out" sign, disallowing the home run. Enraged, Brett stormed out of the dugout toward McClelland and Martin, and McClelland ejected Brett. The homer was later reinstated by AL President Lee MacPhail, and the Royals won the game after it was resumed several weeks later. |
q10 | unknown | 0 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,177 | NO | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Could the mass of at least one component star be looked up on a stellar database? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q20 | unknown | 0 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,178 | NO | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | If one wanted to calculate a property of at least one of the component stars that required knowing the mass, could one do that? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q30 | unknown | 0 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,179 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Are more steps needed to find the mass of the component stars? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q10 | unknown | 1 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,180 | NO | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Could the mass of at least one component star be looked up on a stellar database? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are a mystery. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q20 | unknown | 1 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,181 | NO | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | If one wanted to calculate a property of at least one of the component stars that required knowing the mass, could one do that? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are a mystery. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q30 | unknown | 1 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,182 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Are more steps needed to find the mass of the component stars? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are a mystery. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q10 | unknown | 2 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,183 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Could the mass of at least one component star be looked up on a stellar database? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the mass of one component star is known, though the other is unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q20 | unknown | 2 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,184 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | If one wanted to calculate a property of at least one of the component stars that required knowing the mass, could one do that? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the mass of one component star is known, though the other is unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q30 | unknown | 2 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,185 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Are more steps needed to find the mass of the component stars? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the mass of one component star is known, though the other is unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q10 | unknown | 3 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,186 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Could the mass of at least one component star be looked up on a stellar database? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, and the masses of the two component stars are known . A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q20 | unknown | 3 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,187 | YES | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | If one wanted to calculate a property of at least one of the component stars that required knowing the mass, could one do that? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, and the masses of the two component stars are known . A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q30 | unknown | 3 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. | 2,188 | NO | The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, but the masses of the two component stars are unknown. | Are more steps needed to find the mass of the component stars? | 185 | Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness because of one star passing in front of the other rather than from any intrinsic change in luminosity. W Ursae Minoris is one such system, its magnitude ranging from 8.51 to 9.59 over 1.7 days. The combined spectrum of the system is A2V, and the masses of the two component stars are known . A slight change in the orbital period in 1973 suggests there is a third component of the multiple star system—most likely a red dwarf—with an orbital period of 62.2±3.9 years. RU Ursae Minoris is another example, ranging from 10 to 10.66 over 0.52 ;days. It is a semidetached system, as the secondary star is filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to the primary. |
q10 | no longer | 0 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,189 | NO | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique finds its way into the default Android mail application, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q20 | no longer | 0 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,190 | DON'T KNOW | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new technique that is not considered AI becomes a mainstream technique, does the general public start to consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q11 | no longer | 0 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,191 | YES | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique is dropped before an application is finished, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q10 | no longer | 1 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,192 | NO | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique finds its way into the default Android mail application, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered a different category than artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q20 | no longer | 1 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,193 | DON'T KNOW | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new technique that is not considered AI becomes a mainstream technique, does the general public start to consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered a different category than artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q11 | no longer | 1 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,194 | NO | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique is dropped before an application is finished, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered a different category than artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q10 | no longer | 2 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,195 | DON'T KNOW | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique finds its way into the default Android mail application, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered a pure form of artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q20 | no longer | 2 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,196 | DON'T KNOW | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new technique that is not considered AI becomes a mainstream technique, does the general public start to consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered a pure form of artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q11 | no longer | 2 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,197 | YES | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique is dropped before an application is finished, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered a pure form of artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q10 | no longer | 3 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,198 | YES | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique finds its way into the default Android mail application, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q20 | no longer | 3 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,199 | YES | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new technique that is not considered AI becomes a mainstream technique, does the general public start to consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q11 | no longer | 3 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | 2,200 | DON'T KNOW | Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. | If a new AI technique is dropped before an application is finished, would the general public be likely to still consider it AI? | 186 | AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here. Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is considered artificial intelligence; this phenomenon is described as the AI effect. |
q10 | unwilling | 0 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,201 | YES | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want to avoid problems with Frank? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q20 | unwilling | 0 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,202 | He declines. | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey accept or decline Sandy's suggestion? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q11 | unwilling | 0 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,203 | NO | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want problems for the girl? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q10 | unwilling | 1 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,204 | YES | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want to avoid problems with Frank? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, avoiding getting Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q20 | unwilling | 1 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,205 | He declines. | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey accept or decline Sandy's suggestion? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, avoiding getting Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q11 | unwilling | 1 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,206 | NO | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want problems for the girl? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, avoiding getting Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q10 | unwilling | 2 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,207 | DON'T KNOW | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want to avoid problems with Frank? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he accepts, trying to get Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might unwilling do. |
q20 | unwilling | 2 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,208 | He accepts. | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey accept or decline Sandy's suggestion? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he accepts, trying to get Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might unwilling do. |
q11 | unwilling | 2 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,209 | YES | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want problems for the girl? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he accepts, trying to get Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might unwilling do. |
q10 | unwilling | 3 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,210 | YES | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want to avoid problems with Frank? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, willing to land Sandy or himself in trouble but also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q20 | unwilling | 3 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,211 | He declines. | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey accept or decline Sandy's suggestion? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, willing to land Sandy or himself in trouble but also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q11 | unwilling | 3 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | 2,212 | YES | Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, unwilling to land Sandy or himself in trouble and also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. | Does Jeffrey want problems for the girl? | 187 | After learning that Frank has abducted Dorothy's husband Don and son Donnie to force her into sex slavery, Jeffrey suspects Frank cut off Don's ear to warn her to stay alive for her family's sake. Jeffrey relays the experience to Sandy—without revealing "his" sexual encounter with Dorothy—who urges him to tell her father what he knows about the case, but he refuses, willing to land Sandy or himself in trouble but also fearing what Frank, a gangster and raging psychopath, might do. |
q10 | refused | 0 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,213 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the march of Lusatia belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q20 | refused | 0 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,214 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Is it likely that the Empire's revenue decreased after Bolesław I captured the territories? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q11 | refused | 0 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,215 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the city of Budziszyn belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q10 | refused | 1 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,216 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the march of Lusatia belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and declined to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q20 | refused | 1 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,217 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Is it likely that the Empire's revenue decreased after Bolesław I captured the territories? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and declined to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q11 | refused | 1 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,218 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the city of Budziszyn belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and declined to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q10 | refused | 2 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,219 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the march of Lusatia belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, but only refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q20 | refused | 2 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,220 | YES | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Is it likely that the Empire's revenue decreased after Bolesław I captured the territories? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, but only refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q11 | refused | 2 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,221 | NO | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the city of Budziszyn belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, but only refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q10 | refused | 3 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,222 | NO | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the march of Lusatia belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and agreed to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q20 | refused | 3 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,223 | NO | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Is it likely that the Empire's revenue decreased after Bolesław I captured the territories? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and agreed to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q11 | refused | 3 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. | 2,224 | NO | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and refused to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. | Did Bolesław I probably think that the city of Budziszyn belonged solely to him? | 188 | Bolesław I had taken control of the marches of Lusatia (Łużyce), Sorbian Meissen (Miśnia), and the cities of Budziszyn (Bautzen) and Meissen in 1002, and agreed to pay the tribute to the Empire from the conquered territories. Bolesław, after the Polish-German War (1002–1018), signed the Peace of Bautzen on 30 January 1018, which made Bolesław I a clear winner. The Polish ruler was able to keep the contested marches of Lusatia and Sorbian Meissen not as fiefs, but as part of Polish territory. The Polish prince Mieszko destroyed about 100 Sorbian villages in 1030 and expelled Sorbians from urban areas, with the exception of fishermen and carpenters who were allowed to live in the outskirts. |
q10 | none | 0 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,225 | DON'T KNOW | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people over 65 consider getting food from food banks? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. |
q20 | none | 0 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,226 | YES | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people under 18 be eligible for food stamps? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. |
q30 | none | 0 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,227 | NO | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Might all of the people over 65 consider getting food from food banks? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. |
q10 | none | 1 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,228 | DON'T KNOW | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people over 65 consider getting food from food banks? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and a complete absence of those age 65 or over. |
q20 | none | 1 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,229 | YES | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people under 18 be eligible for food stamps? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and a complete absence of those age 65 or over. |
q30 | none | 1 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,230 | NO | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Might all of the people over 65 consider getting food from food banks? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and a complete absence of those age 65 or over. |
q10 | none | 2 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,231 | YES | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people over 65 consider getting food from food banks? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including none of those under age 18 and 33.8% of those age 65 or over. |
q20 | none | 2 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | 2,232 | DON'T KNOW | About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 33.8% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. | Would some of the people under 18 be eligible for food stamps? | 189 | The median income for a household in the CDP was $26,188, and the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $30,238 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $13,411. About 6.8% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including none of those under age 18 and 33.8% of those age 65 or over. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.