section_id
string | query_id
string | passage
string | question
string | answers_spans
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
history_1840 | c7e52bc9-3599-4e5d-bd4d-abffdb092b86 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many percent of people were not Asian? | {
"spans": [
"94.3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 88908bc8-71db-4d6e-a036-385b3fd09bb2 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many percent of people were not from 2 or more races? | {
"spans": [
"96.8"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | f216d7fc-c60f-4ade-8c30-3a6ec939cf33 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many percent of people were not Hispanic? | {
"spans": [
"93.6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | c579c5e9-c084-4797-b8b7-e0fc783286b2 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more people are there than households? | {
"spans": [
"1343"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 8c0e76b5-af41-454e-beb5-6e82e6a94f3e | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more people are there than families? | {
"spans": [
"1650"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 51c212ed-9b04-4566-a2c2-009b16bc8b6d | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more people are there than housing units? | {
"spans": [
"1311"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 4a5c16e9-314f-46f7-96bd-655cd3fd6d40 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more households are there than families? | {
"spans": [
"307"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 1876f793-cfd6-41c4-b54d-ed10b1085fac | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more housing units are there than families? | {
"spans": [
"339"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 9c4e4f7f-06bf-4305-b492-99c5cc0a7a97 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many more housing units are there than households? | {
"spans": [
"32"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | e70a9192-067d-4ed2-93ff-ea75da51b344 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which racial groups are smaller than 4%? | {
"spans": [
"Native American",
"two or more races"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 65b0bdf4-8d97-4bdb-9e4e-82c65d0d3dd6 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't white? | {
"spans": [
"18"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 76242309-b740-4bad-a018-f06010e34f40 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't African American? | {
"spans": [
"93.9"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | ac9bd5d5-3fbe-4090-a5e4-708a19a4f1a2 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't Native American? | {
"spans": [
"99.9"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | da55015f-171a-4499-bf04-1ebfcd17e7a1 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't Asian? | {
"spans": [
"94.3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | d0ee34ec-a521-4d95-84d1-f0e49b40945f | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't from two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"96.8"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | f6fac942-bdc4-40b2-93ca-a5d2285a555c | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: White or African American? | {
"spans": [
"White"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 33561d4e-818c-4fdf-9415-f76874aac1d5 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: White or African American? | {
"spans": [
"African American"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | b04cc2ee-6e5b-4c93-b7fa-1f7ce6e38d8e | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: Asian or two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"Asian"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | a5059b8b-b568-4035-943e-277f8cd208a3 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: Asian or two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"two or more races"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 4e99eb28-0b8f-40b6-bccf-002652ff25c6 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: Asian or African American? | {
"spans": [
"African American"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 7336298d-c8b9-4d6f-9d42-9d15ceb42be3 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: Asian or African American? | {
"spans": [
"Asian"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 6f369feb-e1fc-4c79-a000-5255dbf23fe1 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which races made up less than 1% of the population? | {
"spans": [
"Native American",
"Race"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 937c4782-8c97-496f-8c2b-a2ab09ea1bf9 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which race made up more of the population, white or African American? | {
"spans": [
"White"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | dcc74d34-e039-4982-ba74-4bfbd98af5b4 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which racial groups are smaller than 4%? | {
"spans": [
"Native American",
"two or more races"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 29ae8ccf-04ef-4e19-85db-fb08ad0718a7 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't White? | {
"spans": [
"18"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 4253df05-aecf-4df3-8c4a-7d1e4168a15a | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't African American? | {
"spans": [
"93.9"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | a38d12f3-ff1d-4b33-9094-0d7e8479a924 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't Native American? | {
"spans": [
"99.9"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 2ec117ec-6dc3-4de7-ac6b-af540af30b16 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't Asian? | {
"spans": [
"94.3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 8ad8c587-609d-4701-a707-09e4bad16f80 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | How many in percent from the census weren't from two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"96.8"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1840 | 29619dc3-5aeb-40b1-9db6-12d9d9c36311 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: White or African American? | {
"spans": [
"White"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 210e4e03-cfbc-44d5-b6bc-d0e43c4c00db | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: White or African American? | {
"spans": [
"African American"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | bce779f3-9f61-4f54-bc58-e3d308d57898 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: Asian or two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"Asian"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 730a1e93-b8e2-4fa5-a6bf-edd53d24b679 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: Asian or two or more races? | {
"spans": [
"two or more races"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | 8bf29a10-1ac5-4b96-836d-489c8de10d0d | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is larger: Native American or African American? | {
"spans": [
"African American"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1840 | f6374ccb-218b-4108-8138-10b5303c1126 | As of the census of 2010, there were 2,213 people, 870 households, and 563 families residing in the town. The population density was . There were 902 housing units at an average density of . The racial makeup of the town was 82.0% White (U.S. Census), 6.1% African American (U.S. Census), 0.1% Native American (U.S. Census), 5.7% Asian (U.S. Census), 0.1% Race (U.S. Census), 2.8% from Race (U.S. Census), and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino (U.S. Census) of any race were 6.4% of the population. | Which group from the census is smaller: Native American or African American? | {
"spans": [
"Native American"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | a23e070e-303f-459c-bd52-5cf456210be9 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Did fewer working Las Vegas residents commute by driving alone or via carpool in 2016? | {
"spans": [
"via carpool"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 9964e213-2b31-4559-994a-b8c6e7101aa2 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Did fewer working Las Vegas residents in 2016 commute using public transportation or by walking? | {
"spans": [
"by walking"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | e1cd4629-4495-49c6-af7b-fc9883a51f37 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Were there more Las Vegas households without a car in 2015 or 2016? | {
"spans": [
"2016"
],
"types": [
"date"
]
} |
history_1816 | aa51ba0c-0617-4267-8443-0e9a666f8132 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Was the percentage of households without a car in 2016 higher or lower than the national average? | {
"spans": [
"higher"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | be3b8814-a22c-4261-8916-e3cdf4fdb69e | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Did more working Las Vegas residents work at home or away from home in 2016? | {
"spans": [
"away from home"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 2cb3a448-84e2-4c6d-8275-4d2ca3bacef1 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | How many more Las Vegas households, in terms of percentage, did not have a car in 2016 compared to 2015? | {
"spans": [
"0.3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1816 | f3d59f24-bf28-42e3-b8a3-8e03a170d822 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Did fewer working Las Vegas residents commute using "all other" forms of transportation or by walking in 2016? | {
"spans": [
"by walking"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | e74a1ce5-38f2-4b0d-8e93-ccf685104776 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which commuter group had more people, those who commuted by driving alone or those who commuted via carpool? | {
"spans": [
"commuted by driving alone"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 582b2293-604d-4552-8f2f-e862ad1d062e | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which commuter group had the lowest number of people, those that walked or those that used all other forms of transportation? | {
"spans": [
"walked"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 55a7b463-be42-4abf-9559-9747f996a008 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which commuter group had less people, the group that had people who commuted via carpool or the group where people used public transportation? | {
"spans": [
"used public transportation"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 1e722194-d580-4274-b76c-85c4ad74a19d | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | In which year were there less people without a car, 2015 or 2016? | {
"spans": [
"2015"
],
"types": [
"date"
]
} |
history_1816 | 70f728a4-7af4-45a7-a364-522d2690ddc5 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which average of cars per household was lower, Las Vegas or national? | {
"spans": [
"Las Vegas"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 610ae8f4-0e9e-423f-9c13-5561eab3bf22 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | How many percentage of the Las Vegas residents commuted driving alone than carpooling? | {
"spans": [
"66.1"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1816 | f79e1fae-7562-4ea5-baf8-e682daaad449 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | How many percentage did Las Vegas households increase being without a car from 2015 to 2016? | {
"spans": [
".2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1816 | f2413aed-bf82-49c4-8be7-b92a7f99d83f | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | What are all the forms of of transportation commuters use in Las Vegas? | {
"spans": [
"taxi",
"bicycle",
"motorcycle"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | f00d435d-2092-4cdf-b252-be66cd0227b0 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | How many people in Las Vegas carpooled than walked in 2016? | {
"spans": [
"9.6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1816 | 010be775-b8b4-4f80-aa9a-aca85cf8fa89 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | How many percent carpooled, used public transportation and walked combined in Las Vegas? | {
"spans": [
"16.3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1816 | 958efd56-5e21-48ac-8f01-214b2027da04 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which commute had the highest percentage in Las Vegas 2016, public transportation or carpool? | {
"spans": [
"carpool"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 5e3c769b-ed3d-4c4d-b10b-295c19aebb9a | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | What are all the commutes with a higher percentage than walked? | {
"spans": [
"other forms",
"public transportation",
"carpool",
"driving alone"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span",
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1816 | 33c8ba29-44b6-4a6d-a25a-8d9dfbb0b441 | In 2016, 77.1 percent of working Las Vegas residents (those living in the city, but not necessarily working in the city) commuted by driving alone. About 11 percent commuted via carpool, 3.9 percent used public transportation, and 1.4 percent walked. About 2.3 percent of Las Vegas commuters used all other forms of transportation, including taxi, bicycle, and motorcycle. About 4.3 of working Las Vegas residents worked at home. In 2015, 10.2 percent of city of Las Vegas households were without a car, which increased slightly to 10.5 percent in 2016. The national average was 8.7 percent in 2016. Las Vegas averaged 1.63 cars per household in 2016, compared to a national average of 1.8 per household. | Which year has the lowest average in Las Vegas, cars per household or national per household? | {
"spans": [
"cars per household"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 2a7816a8-73f2-4cab-8ce5-c2f0ec910603 | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | How many touchdowns were scored during the game? | {
"spans": [
"6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | e0b28d0e-9d59-4bf6-8a7f-db7adeaa281c | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | How many touchdowns did Flacco throw? | {
"spans": [
"2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | b23d031e-4d02-4361-8998-9db8ed13f973 | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | Which team won the game? | {
"spans": [
"Ravens"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 54d49eec-229a-4590-b3a0-701c0f511c83 | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | What was the longest touchdown of the first half? | {
"spans": [
"81-yard"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | a73717b2-d1e5-444f-900f-f239dde0267b | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | How many touchdowns did the Ravens score in the first half? | {
"spans": [
"3"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 0792abda-5a3d-4c6a-9805-b732751387ce | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | Who had the longest touchdown catch of the game? | {
"spans": [
"Darren Sproles"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 32ea223b-111e-443c-9ed3-6918169f1705 | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | How many field goals did Nate Kaeding make in the second half? | {
"spans": [
"1"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 76cd4459-9d66-4562-a48f-f503ff59a0b8 | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | What all touchdowns did Philip Rivers make? | {
"spans": [
"81-yard",
"35-yard"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1342 | 938d412d-ed6e-43d1-9b0d-a07cb360c90c | The Chargers host the Ravens in their home debut in San Diego after a narrow escape in the second of two AFL 50th Anniversary-themed division rivalry Monday Night matchups against the Raiders in Oakland. The Chargers jumped out to an early lead when a blown coverage led to an easy 81-yard touchdown pass from Philip Rivers to Darren Sproles. The Ravens answered with Willis McGahee on a 5-yard touchdown run, but the Chargers would increase their advantage on a Nate Kaeding field goal. The offensive display would continue in the second quarter, but the Ravens touchdowns were only answered by Chargers field goals. McGahee found the end zone a second time to take the lead 14 - 10, but the Chargers pulled within one on the second Kaeding field goal. Flacco then found Kelley Washington for Flacco's first touchdown pass of the day and Washington's first touchdown reception as a Raven just inside the 2-minute halftime warning. Rivers led the Chargers down the field in an attempt to answer, but the drive stalled and had to settle for the third of four Kaeding field goals. In the second half, both defenses stiffened. Todd Heap would get his second touchdown catch of the season from Flacco from 9 yards out, but the Chargers responded with a 35-yard touchdown catch from Vincent Jackson. Late in the fourth quarter, interceptions from Flacco and Rivers led to trading field goals. After a Ravens punt, Rivers led the Chargers all the way down to the Ravens 15. The Chargers went for the first down on fourth down to go for the win, but Sproles was stopped by Ray Lewis five yards in the backfield, allowing the Ravens to run the clock out. With the win, not only do the Ravens improve to 2-0, the Ravens take sole possession of first place in the AFC North with the Steelers' loss to the Bears. | How many touchdown passes over 30 yards were made? | {
"spans": [
"2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | 27548396-2918-4b27-8313-3aaef4b4f958 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many points did the Hurricanes shatter the previous franchise record by? | {
"spans": [
"18"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | 07c2f18e-8e42-4263-a122-bc6c829d18b1 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many years did the Hurricanes attendance increase averaging 15,600 per game? | {
"spans": [
"1"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | ac03d3d7-d73e-4caa-a032-2fd721920b64 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many more points did the NHL Hurricanes regular season 112 points have than the franchise record of 94 points? | {
"spans": [
"18"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | b8dc69c5-2d86-4754-ade0-4136f25f4fb5 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | Which happened first, the shrinking of payroll to $25m or attendance averaging under 15,600? | {
"spans": [
"attendance averaging under 15,600"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1914 | 76adb305-c64a-421d-b526-fe925c220156 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many years did it take for the Hurricanes to achieve their best season ever by 2004–05? | {
"spans": [
"34"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | 90281a80-3f40-4125-8f77-58534d4b194e | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many more games were won than lost for the Hurricanes in 04-05? | {
"spans": [
"30"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | e471fe43-06d7-4c35-8fa2-ec19ade94ef2 | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many years did it take for the Hurricanes to ever achieve passing a 50-win by the 04-05 season? | {
"spans": [
"34"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1914 | 3c754d5b-fc66-48e2-b80a-da408c06f72f | Stanley Cup champions The outcome of the 2004–05 NHL lockout led to the shrinking of the payroll to $26 million. The Hurricanes, however, turned out to be one of the NHLs biggest surprises, turning in the best season in the franchises 34-year history. They finished the regular season with a 52–22–8 record and 112 points, shattering the previous franchise records of 94 points (in the WHA) set by the 1972–73 Whalers and 93 points (in the NHL) set in 1986–87 NHL season. It was the first time ever that the franchise had passed the 50-win and 100-point plateaus. The 112-point figure was good for fourth overall in the league, easily their highest overall finish as an NHL team (tied with the third-overall Dallas Stars in points, but with one fewer win than the Stars) and second in the East (one point behind the Ottawa Senators). The Hurricanes also ran away with their third Southeast Division title, finishing 20 points ahead of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Attendance increased from 2003–04, averaging just under 15,600 per game, and the team made a profit for the first time since the move from Hartford. | How many more points did the Hurricanes finish the regular season with 112 points then the previous franchise record of 94 points | {
"spans": [
"18"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 770d0d3b-a76d-42c2-a202-05494ca1b9a7 | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | Which team scored the first points of the game? | {
"spans": [
"Patriots"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | e51edac9-e3a7-4f72-91d2-5de9eaec202f | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | How many points were scored in the 1st half? | {
"spans": [
"13"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 4795f3d0-e725-4856-a689-d3a4dbf7f10e | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | Who had the most yards in this game? | {
"spans": [
"Ben Roethlisberger"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 5c016077-3126-4051-a002-39fccda9136e | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | How many points did the Patriots win by? | {
"spans": [
"13"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | cd50f8a6-3fcc-40a4-8fcd-112b9b8da520 | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | How many points were the Patriots ahead at halftime? | {
"spans": [
"7"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 5e6a228d-271a-4815-988c-bf1d7d57bcab | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | Who did the Patriots just lose against? | {
"spans": [
"Browns"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 2aff77b0-d980-4187-87cd-52ce67a00e82 | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | Which team did the Browns beat in the prior week? | {
"spans": [
"Patriots"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 747ebcca-f649-43a4-a0c2-cacdc6f5bd8a | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | Which player caught the first TD pass of the game? | {
"spans": [
"Gronkowski"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_1954 | 76f86a70-63f1-412e-990f-4db1f5658a8f | Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Browns, the Patriots flew to Heinz Field to face the Steelers. After forcing the Steelers to punt on the opening drive, the Patriots marched 70 yards in just 8 plays, scoring on a 19-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski. After the Steelers punted, the Patriots drove to the 12, but the Steelers #1 ranked defense tightened down, and forced the Patriots to a 30-yard field goal by Shayne Graham, increasing their lead to 10-0. Two possessions later, The Steelers drove to the Patriots 4, but settled for a 22-yard field goal by Jeff Reed, making the score 10-3. Both teams punted for the rest of the half and the Patriot led 10-3 at halftime. The Patriots opened up a scoring barrage in the 2nd half. On the opening possession of the 3rd quarter, the Patriots marched 78 yards in a perfectly balanced 10 play (5 passes, 5 rushes) drive, scoring on a 9-yard touchdown pass from Brady to Gronkowski, increasing their lead to 17-3. After both teams punted, the Steelers drove 59 (aided by a 38-yard pass interference call on Brandon Meriweather)yards to the Patriots 8-yard line, but Reed missed a 26-yard field goal. The Patriots took advantage, marching 80 yards in 7 plays, scoring on Brady's 3-yard touchdown run, with a missed extra point, increasing the Patriots lead to 23-3. The Steelers countered on their next drive, racing 71 yards in 7 plays, scoring on a 6-yard touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Emmanuel Sanders, trimming the deficit to 23-10. After the Patriots punted, Roethlisberger was intercepted by James Sanders who returned the interception 32 yards for a touchdown, increasing the lead to 29-10 after the missed two point conversion. Sanders returned the ensuing kick 26 yards to the Patriots 47 and the Steelers raced 53 yards in just 5 plays, scoring on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Mike Wallace, with a successful two-point conversion, trimming the deficit to 29-18. After recovering the onside kick, the Patriots put the game away, marching effortlessly, 41 yards in only 5 plays, scoring on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Gronkowski, his third touchdown reception of the game, giving the Patriots an insurmountable 36-18 lead with 4:23 remaining. Ben Roethlisberger completed four passes, all to Mike Wallace on the next drive, including a 33-yard touchdown pass, with another successful 2 point conversion, trimming the deficit to 36-26, but the Patriots' Alge Crumpler recovered the onside kick. Graham added the final points of the game with a 36-yard field goal, bringing the score to 39-26. Pittsburgh drove to New England's 15 with a few seconds left, but couldn't score. Tom Brady finished 30/43 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions against the top-ranked defense in the NFL. Rob Gronkowski caught all three TDs en route to a 5 catch, 72 yard night. Ben Roethlisberger threw for 387 yards in defeat. With the win, New England improve to 7-2. | How many yards was the Steelers first points from? | {
"spans": [
"22-yard"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
nfl_2475 | c34e7840-840e-484b-a41c-89197a800175 | With the loss the Steelers dropped to 7-6 overall, 4-2 in home games, 1-3 against the AFC West, and 14-1 all-time at home against the San Diego Chargers despite Big Ben returning to the field from injury. They became the only AFC North team to lose to the Chargers, win less than three games against all four AFC West teams, and not win any of those matchups in regulation. With losses by the Ravens and Bengals on the same day, the AFC North title remains in sight for Pittsburgh, who will travel to Dallas next week to take on the Cowboys, a team they have faced three times out of their eight appearances in the Super Bowl. Both teams share the NFL-record number of Super Bowl appearances for a franchise, tied at eight, and remain the only two teams to face each other more than twice in Super Bowl matchups. | How many Super Bowl appearances do the Steelers and Cowboys have combined? | {
"spans": [
"16"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_2475 | 57c59966-b0b1-4858-a86f-731c3efb763b | With the loss the Steelers dropped to 7-6 overall, 4-2 in home games, 1-3 against the AFC West, and 14-1 all-time at home against the San Diego Chargers despite Big Ben returning to the field from injury. They became the only AFC North team to lose to the Chargers, win less than three games against all four AFC West teams, and not win any of those matchups in regulation. With losses by the Ravens and Bengals on the same day, the AFC North title remains in sight for Pittsburgh, who will travel to Dallas next week to take on the Cowboys, a team they have faced three times out of their eight appearances in the Super Bowl. Both teams share the NFL-record number of Super Bowl appearances for a franchise, tied at eight, and remain the only two teams to face each other more than twice in Super Bowl matchups. | How many super bowls did Pittsburgh play against teams other than the Cowboys? | {
"spans": [
"5"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
nfl_2475 | 41eb2cf4-d47a-4126-91be-1a654138bb85 | With the loss the Steelers dropped to 7-6 overall, 4-2 in home games, 1-3 against the AFC West, and 14-1 all-time at home against the San Diego Chargers despite Big Ben returning to the field from injury. They became the only AFC North team to lose to the Chargers, win less than three games against all four AFC West teams, and not win any of those matchups in regulation. With losses by the Ravens and Bengals on the same day, the AFC North title remains in sight for Pittsburgh, who will travel to Dallas next week to take on the Cowboys, a team they have faced three times out of their eight appearances in the Super Bowl. Both teams share the NFL-record number of Super Bowl appearances for a franchise, tied at eight, and remain the only two teams to face each other more than twice in Super Bowl matchups. | Which teams are the only ones to meet in the super bowl more than twice? | {
"spans": [
"Steelers",
"Cowboys"
],
"types": [
"span",
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | ad6b2ae4-8841-4b21-a078-7b80a48744ea | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many years had Vitslav III had sole lordship before he signed a contract of inheritance with the Danish king? | {
"spans": [
"6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | 09cb74e9-980f-4737-8d67-52d220bdea79 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many years after Vitslav III gained sole lordship did he agree to a contract of inheritance? | {
"spans": [
"6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | bbc34f5b-167f-4162-9ea4-3a57b565c2bb | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who was the Danish King in 1168? | {
"spans": [
"King Valdemar I"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | ad987823-1c53-4a82-96d1-a5b3850bf9fa | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | What was Vartislav IV's father's name? | {
"spans": [
"Christopher of Halland"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | e34d6c24-c681-4744-88b7-85dab94b78d6 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How was Margaret related to Vitslav? | {
"spans": [
"sister"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | 072274f3-1a65-459f-8547-3d35962f3858 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | What happened first, the conquest of the temple fort, or the recognition of Danish suzerainty? | {
"spans": [
"conquest of the temple fort"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | d2ebcc5a-701e-4e2e-8df2-6ef665b8285b | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many Danish leaders led the conquest at the temple fort? | {
"spans": [
"2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | 864986d7-7c79-4b7c-827e-bd623b86a4ca | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who ruled first, Vitslav III of Rügen, or Sambor? | {
"spans": [
"Sambor"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | 7688bcc2-a5e4-4bad-b09c-19085b75d41c | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many years after Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory did he agree on a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved? | {
"spans": [
"6"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | c960307a-5f42-41da-aadc-2806bbfdebb0 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who died first, Vitslav III or Sambor? | {
"spans": [
"Sambor"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | c5a48e46-6b58-47a1-bbcf-66a330e58b77 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many vassals did Eric VI have? | {
"spans": [
"2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | 58836c95-0f58-4447-87dc-c7a04be789c7 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many years after making the contract with Vitslav III did Eric VI die? | {
"spans": [
"9"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
history_1587 | 8ed5906f-f63a-4a26-9b4d-5af9545d6cef | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who did Vitslav III ally with after Erik IV? | {
"spans": [
"Pomeranian dukes"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | fd152386-7222-48f8-891b-446c6e6726af | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who was Sambor's brother? | {
"spans": [
"Vitslav III of Rügen"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | aebb1dc4-6350-4f7c-b8ee-c12a15f2291c | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | Who was Margaret's brother? | {
"spans": [
"Vitslav"
],
"types": [
"span"
]
} |
history_1587 | f2bfe450-c140-4f92-afe9-616704c92148 | Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rügen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rügen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rügen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rügen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rügen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rügen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rügen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rügen fiefdom. | How many people had made an agreement with Vartislav IV for the Rügen fiefdom? | {
"spans": [
"2"
],
"types": [
"number"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.