text:
 This article is more than 2 YEARS OLD

Sales bested 2017’s 17% increase over Labor Day, according to Edison Trends, despite Trump’s protests of the campaign

The Nike ad starring Colin Kaepernick does not appear to have adversely affected sales, an analyst said on Saturday.

According to Edison Trends, a digital commerce research company: “Nike sales grew 31% from Sunday through Tuesday over Labor Day this year, besting 2017’s comparative 17% increase.”

The sportswear giant released the first version of its ad on Monday, the Labor Day holiday. It featured the quarterback and the slogan: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Just do it.”

Kaepernick, 30, has been without a team since opting out of his San Francisco 49ers contract in March 2017. In 2016 he was an originator of protests by NFL players, targeting racial injustice and police brutality, which often involve kneeling during the pre-game playing of the national anthem.

Donald Trump has made the protests a key part of his appeal to his base, arguing that the players are disrespecting the anthem, the US flag and the military.

On Tuesday, the president told the rightwing website Daily Caller: “I think it’s a terrible message that [Nike] are sending and the purpose of them doing it, maybe there’s a reason for them doing it. But I think as far as sending a message, I think it’s a terrible message and a message that shouldn’t be sent. There’s no reason for it.”

He also said Nike paid him “a lot of rent” in New York and admitted that the protests and the Nike ad were “in another way … what this country is all about, that you have certain freedoms to do things that other people think you shouldn’t do”.

“But I personally am on a different side of it,” Trump said.

In the following days, the president pursued the issue via Twitter. On Wednesday, he wrote: “Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts. I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way? As far as the NFL is concerned, I just find it hard to watch, and always will, until they stand for the FLAG!”

Trump did not supply evidence for his claim of “anger and boycotts” but opposition to the company’s move was expressed widely and in some instances creatively on social media.

On Friday, the morning after the full version of the Nike ad played during the Philadelphia Eagles v Atlanta Falcons NFL season opener, the president asked: “What was Nike thinking?”

Nike releases full ad featuring Colin Kaepernick - video
Edison Trends’ analysis suggested the company will be thinking its gambit has worked, allowing it to surf familiar controversy and create a “Trump bump” all of its own.

“Nike’s 2018 late summer sales show much the same trend as last year’s,” the company wrote, “with order volume decreasing slightly going into late August. The similarity decreases coming out of Labor Day weekend, however, with sales seeing a bigger bump on Monday and Tuesday than in the past.”

Edison Trends said its analysis was based on “anonymised and aggregated e-receipts from more than 3 million consumers”.

The NFL has not resolved how to respond to or govern the protests, which were widely discussed again on Thursday after Eagles defensive end Michael Bennett sat down before the anthem had finished.

In July, in an open letter to league owners, the NBA great and Guardian sports columnist Kareem Abdul Jabbar wrote: “It’s been two years since Colin Kaepernick first took a knee to protest systemic racial injustice, especially police brutality, against people of color.

“The worst thing about that isn’t that two years later we’re still debating whether players have the right to protest, it’s that not much has changed regarding what Kaepernick was protesting.”

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Summarize the arguments against Kaepernick.

answer: Donald Trump has made the protests a key part of his appeal to his base, arguing that the players are disrespecting the anthem, the US flag, and the military.

text: The first part of the response is unnecessary.

refinement: Donald Trump argued that the players are disrespecting the anthem, the US flag, and the military.

answer: Trump states that Kaepernick is disrespecting the anthem, the US flag and the military.

answer: Trump states that Kaepernick is disrespecting the anthem, the US flag and the military by kneeling during the pre-game playing of the national anthem.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the article say about the effects of Kaepernick's protests?

answer: The article states that Nike sales went up by 31% during Labor Day weekend, despite Trump's protests. The analyst that is quoted believes that Nike's sales will continue to grow. However, Trump believes that Nike has sent a terrible message to the country.

answer: According to Edison Trends, Nike sales went up 31% after their ads featuring Kaepernick. Trump has been critical of the protests, arguing that they are disrespectful towards the anthem, flag, and military. Despite this, Nike's sales have not been negatively affected.

answer: The article states that Nike sales went up by 31% during Labor Day weekend, despite Trump's protests. The analyst that is quoted believes that Nike's sales will continue to grow. However, Trump believes that Nike has sent a terrible message to the country.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the article say about ways to resolve racial injustice and police brutality?

answer: No answer

answer: No answer


split: test

text:
[]

Here we go. The New York Times says that the upcoming IG report will accused McCabe of improperly leaking info to the media.

The Hill:

  A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe for allowing agency officials to provide information about an ongoing investigation to the media, The New York Times reported Thursday.

  McCabe reportedly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in its investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

  The deputy director allowed officials to discuss a meeting detailed in an October 2016 Journal report, during which some top DOJ officials reportedly decided against authorizing a grand jury or subpoenas in the Clinton investigation.

  The Journal report also cited sources, including one “close to McCabe,” who said McCabe had claimed the FBI had the ability to continue with the investigation into the Clinton Foundation during a heated conversation with a senior DOJ official.

OK, I’ll admit I’m a little confused here. If the Deputy Attorney General authorizes people to speak to the press, is it really a leak? Aren’t there times when this is a proper thing to do?

Even if you assume the worst in answer to those questions, some people are saying the info he leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump. So I honestly don’t know what’s going on here. You let me know what you think in the comments.

question: Who will the Justice Department's inspector general criticize?

answer: Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

text: "A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe" is evidence that Andrew McCabe is the one being criticized.

answer: Andrew McCabe.

text: The answer could specify who Andrew McCabe is.

refinement: Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

text: "A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe" is evidence that Andrew McCabe is the one being criticized.

answer: The inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

text: "A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe" is evidence that Andrew McCabe is the one being criticized.

answer: The inspector general will criticize McCabe.

text: Does not specify who McCabe is.

refinement: The inspector general will criticize McCabe, the former FBI deputy director.

text: "A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general will criticize former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe" is evidence that Andrew McCabe is the one being criticized.

question: Who did McCabe authorize to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in its investigation?

answer: McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in its investigation.

text: "McCabe reportedly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal" is evidence that McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide that information.

answer: According to the passage, McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in its investigation.

text: "McCabe reportedly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal" is evidence that McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide that information.

answer: McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in its investigation.

text: "McCabe reportedly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal" is evidence that McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide that information.

answer: FBI officials.

text: "McCabe reportedly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal" is evidence that McCabe authorized FBI officials to provide that information.

question: Why is the author confused?

answer: The author is confused about the accusations against McCabe.

text: While this is correct, it does not explain what is confusing about the specific accustations.

refinement: The author is confused about the accusations against McCabe. He has been accused of leaking information, but the author wonders whether it can count as a leak, considering officials were authorized to speak to the press.

answer: The author is confused because it is unclear whether McCabe's alleged leaking of information was improper or not, and whether the information leaked was detrimental to Hillary Clinton or to Donald Trump.

text: "If the Deputy Attorney General authorizes people to speak to the press, is it really a leak?" is evidence that the author is confused about whether McCabe's leak actually qualifies as a leak.

text: "some people are saying the info he leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump" is evidence that it is possible the leak was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton.

answer: It is not clear what the misconduct was, and it seems any information he would have leaked would have hurt Hilary not Trump.

text: "If the Deputy Attorney General authorizes people to speak to the press, is it really a leak?" is evidence that the author is confused about whether McCabe's leak actually qualifies as a leak (and therefore as misconduct).

text: "some people are saying the info he leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump" is evidence that it is possible the leak was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton.

answer: The author is confused because the article does not make it clear whether McCabe leaked information to the press or whether he authorized others to do so.

text: This isn't completely correct. It is clear that he authorized others to do so. The question is whether that classifies as a leak and therefore misconduct.

refinement: The author is confused because the article does not make it clear whether McCabe can be considered to have leaked information to the press if he authorized others to do so.

text: The author is also confused about the effects of the leak, which some claim have hurt Hillary rather than Trump.

refinement: The author is confused because the article does not make it clear whether McCabe can be considered to have leaked information to the press if he authorized others to do so. They are also confused about the fact that the leaked information, according to some, was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton rather than Trump.

question: What was the investigation he leaked concerned with?

answer: The investigation he leaked concerned with was the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: Grammar (the phrase "concerned with was" is confusing).

refinement: The investigation he leaked concerned the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: The phrasing does not make it clear that the concern was with how the agency handled the investigation.

refinement: The investigation he leaked concerned how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: "in its investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server" is evidence that the investigation was concerned with Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

answer: The investigation was concerned with how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: "in its investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server" is evidence that the investigation was concerned with how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

answer: The investigation McCabe leaked information about was the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: "in its investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server" is evidence that the investigation was concerned with how the agency handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

answer: Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: This is incorrect. The investigation was of the agency (the FBI) and how they handled the probe into Hillary's use of the private email server.

refinement: How the agency handled the probe into Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server.

question: Write a ~2 sentence summary.

answer: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media.

text: The summary could go into more depth about what it was that McCabe leaked.

refinement: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media concerning the investigation of how the FBI handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: The summary could provide details about the author's confusion.

refinement: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media concerning the investigation of how the FBI handled the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The author of the article expresses confusion as to how the information can be considered a leak if authorization was given to share it with the press.

answer: A report from the Justice Department says Andrew McCabe was dismissed due to his releasing information to the Wall Street Journal about an FBI investigation into Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server. The author expresses confusion about the motivation of McCabe's dismissal.

text: The investigation was of how the FBI handled the probe.

refinement: A report from the Justice Department says Andrew McCabe was dismissed due to his releasing information to the Wall Street Journal about an FBI investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server. The author expresses confusion about the motivation of McCabe's dismissal.

text: The answer could be clearer about what the source of the author's confusion is.

refinement: A report from the Justice Department says Andrew McCabe was dismissed due to his releasing information to the Wall Street Journal about an FBI investigation into how the agency handled the probe into Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server. The author expresses confusion about the motivation of McCabe's dismissal, questioning whether the information can be considered a leak if authorization was given to share it with the media.

answer: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media. The report will criticize McCabe for allowing agency officials to provide information about an ongoing investigation to the media.

text: Does not mention what the investigation concerns.

refinement: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media. The report will criticize McCabe for allowing agency officials to provide information about an ongoing investigation concerning the FBI's handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

text: Could add mention of the author's confusion.

refinement: The New York Times reports that the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media. The report will criticize McCabe for allowing agency officials to provide information about an ongoing investigation concerning the FBI's handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The author expresses confusion about whether the information can be considered a leak if authorization was given to share it with the media.

answer: According to The New York Times, the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media. Some people believe that the information leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump.

text: Could mention what information the leak concerns

refinement: According to The New York Times, the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media concerning the FBI's handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Some people believe that the information leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump.

text: Could mention the author's confusion.

refinement: According to The New York Times, the upcoming IG report will accuse McCabe of improperly leaking information to the media concerning the FBI's handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Some people believe that the information leaked was actually detrimental to Hillary Clinton, not to Trump. The author is confused as to how the information can be considered a leak if authorization was given to share it.


text:
[Franz von Lenbach, _Portrait of Alois Hauser the Elder_, 1900] ALOIS HAUSER (17 February 1831 - 7 March 1909) was a German art restorer, court painter and curator.

Life

He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son. Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen. Thanks to help from the businessman Anton Carry (1797–1860), who had been in charge of the art gallery in Hechingen since 1845, he then went to Augsburg between 1847 and 1854 to study under the painter and art-restorer Anton Deschler (1816–1881) and to attend the city's Kunstschule im Polytechnikum, which was based in the former Katharinenkloster, as was the new Staatsgalerie, founded in 1835.

Probably again through Carry's influence, Hauser met Constantine, who had been living in Silesian Löwenberg since ceding Hohenzollern-Hechingen to the Kingdom of Prussia after the German revolutions of 1848–49. Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855. Hauser also continued to work as a painter on the open market via an art-dealer in Bamberg in Upper Franconia, who obtained much more lucrative commissions for him. This persuaded him to move to Bamberg in 1861, where in a few years he gained a good reputation as a restorer and work on public collections such as the German National Museum in Nuremberg, founded in 1852. He also carried out restoration for Bamberg's own Kunstinstitut from 1865 onwards as well as being appointed conservator of the city's paintings in 1869.

As a restorer he was part of a new generation which analysed historical painting techniques so as to assess how best to restore the paint surface, as described in his 1896 _Anleitung zur Technik der Oelmalerei_.[1] His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_. In 1887 he also restored the _Darmstadt Madonna_, a campaign recognised with its own exhibition,

Trainees in his conservation studio in Munich went on to work at other major European museums, including his own son Alois Hauser the Younger (1857–1919), who became head restorer at the Gemäldegalerie (Berlin) in 1887, and Otto Vermehren, later Head of Conservation at the Uffizi in Florence. Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.[2]

Bibliography (in German)

-   Burger, Friedrich Richard: _Offener Brief an Herrn Professor Alois Hauser, I. Konservator an der Alten Pinakothek zu München_, München 1906 (Digital)
-   Holland, Hyacinth: _Hauser, Alois_. In: _Biographisches Jahrbuch und Deutscher Nekrolog_ 14 (1912), S. 164–167 (Digital)
-   Senn, Ernst: _Zur Bildkunde Hohenzollern. Fr. von Lenbach: Professor Alois Hauser 1831–1909_. In _Hohenzollerische Jahreshefte_ 7 (1940), S. 110–113
-   Mandt, Petra: _Alois Hauser d. J. (1857–1919) und sein Manuskript “Über die Restauration von Gemälden”_. In: _Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung_ 9 (1995), Heft 2, S. 215–231

[1]

[2] Holland 1912, p. 167

title: Alois Hauser the Elder

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Where was Alois Hauser the Elder born?

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was born in Burladingen in the small Principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen.

text: He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son.

answer: Burladingen, which was then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen

text: He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was born in Burladingen.

text: He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son.

answer: He was born in Burladingen which was then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen.

text: He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was born in Burladingen, a small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen.

text: He was born in Burladingen (then part of the small principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen) in 1831 as a potter's son.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

How old was Alois Hauser the Elder when he started studying under Kaspar Lieb?

answer: He was fourteen.

text: Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was 14 years old when he started studying under Kaspar Lieb.

text: Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen.

answer: He was 14 years old.

text: Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen.

answer: He was fourteen when he started studying under Kaspar Lieb.

text: Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was fourteen when he started studying under Kaspar Lieb.

text: Aged fourteen he studied under the decorative painter Kaspar Lieb (1803–1864) in Hettingen.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

When was Alois Hauser the Elder officially made curator and court-painter of Constantine's paintings?

answer: 1855.

text: Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855.

answer: Alois Hauser was officially made curator of Constantine's paintings in 1855.

text: Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855.

answer: 1855

text: Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855.

answer: He became curator of Constantine's collection after formally becoming curator and court-painter in 1855.

text: Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was officially made curator and court-painter of Constantine's paintings in 1855.

text: Hauser took over from Carry as curator of Constantine's collection of paintings, which moved from Hechingen to Löwenberg in the early 1850s, and was officially made curator and court-painter in 1855.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What conservation department did Alois Hauser the Elder join in 1875?

answer: Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder joined the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

answer: He joined the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder became the conservator of the Alte Pinakothek.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

answer: The Alte Pinakothek in Munich.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Who gave Alois Hauser the Elder's funeral oration?

answer: Franz von Reber gave Alois Hauser the Elder's funeral oration.

text: Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.

answer: Franz von Reber gave Alois Hauser the Elder's funeral oration.

text: Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.

answer: Franz von Reber, Director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, gave Alois Hauser the Elder's funeral oration.

text: Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.

answer: Franz Von Reber, director of Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, gave Alois Hauser the Elder's funeral oration.

text: Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.

answer: The funeral oration was given by chief of the Bayerische Staatssammlungen, Franz Von Reber.

text: He was the director, not the chief.

refinement: The funeral oration was given by director of the Bayerische Staatssammlungen, Franz Von Reber.

text: Hauser the Elder died in Munich in 1909 and was buried in Schwabing, with the funeral oration given by Franz von Reber, director of the Bayerischen Staatssammlungen, stating that Hauser was “not only the best, but the best in his field in his time”.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What van Dyck's work did Alois Hauser the Elder work on restoring?

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder worked on restoring van Dyck's Susanna and the Elders.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder worked on van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

text: I took out the underscores.

refinement: Alois Hauser the Elder worked on van Dyck's Susanna and the Elders.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder worked on van Dyck's "Susanna and the Elders" in 1887,

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

answer: Hauser the Elder worked on restoring van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

text: I took out the underscores.

refinement: Hauser the Elder worked on restoring van Dyck's Susanna and the Elders.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

answer: On van Dyck's The Susanna and the Elders.

text: His growing reputation in the field led him to move again in 1875, this time to Munich, where he took over the Alte Pinakothek's conservation department. In 1885 he was appointed its conservator and four years later a professor. There he worked on Durer's _Paumgartner altarpiece_, Rubens' _The Great Last Judgement_ and van Dyck's _Susanna and the Elders_.

question: Write a ~3 sentence summary.

answer: Alois Hauser was a German art restorer, court painter, and curator who wrote Anleitung zur Technik der Oelmalerei. He was born in  17 February 1831 and died on March 7 1909.

answer: Alois Hauser was a German art restorer and curator. He was born in 1831, studied under artists in Augsburg and then moved to Bamberg in 1861. He later acquired a reputation for his restoration work and eventually moved to Munich to take up the position of conservator at the Alte Pinakothek. He died in 1909.

answer: Alois Hauser was a German art restorer and museum curator in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He was born in 1831 and moved to various cities for education and work opportunities. In 1875, he was appointed conservator of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. Hauser's students went on to work at other great museums. He died in 1909.

answer: Alois Hauser was a German art restorer, court painter and curator. Credits for his early education may be attributed to Anton Carry. Ultimately, through his thriving reputation in the field, he was appointed to the Kunstakademie at Munich, where he died in 1909.

answer: Alois Hauser the Elder was a German art restorer and painter. Throughout his career he worked for several different collectors and institutions. His work was considered highly prestigious, and he worked on several very famous paintings.


text:
media caption'Mr President, are you a racist?'

THE ORGANISATION REPRESENTING AFRICAN COUNTRIES HAS DEMANDED THAT US PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP APOLOGISE AFTER HE REPORTEDLY CALLED NATIONS ON THE CONTINENT "SHITHOLES".

The African Union mission in Washington DC expressed its "shock, dismay and outrage" and said the Trump administration misunderstood Africans.

The US leader made the alleged remark in a Thursday meeting on immigration.

But Mr Trump has denied using the language reported.

He has been backed by two Republicans who were at the White House meeting, but Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said Mr Trump called African countries "shitholes" several times and used "racist" language.

On Friday, Mr Trump on Friday tweeted that his language he used at the private meeting with lawmakers to discuss immigration legislation had been "tough".

But he added that the words attributed to him were "not the language used".

media captionUS Senator: "Trump said these hate-filled things, and he said them repeatedly"

What did the African Union say?

It said the "remarks dishonour the celebrated American creed and respect for diversity and human dignity".

It added: "While expressing our shock, dismay and outrage, the African Union strongly believes that there is a huge misunderstanding of the African continent and its people by the current Administration.

"There is a serious need for dialogue between the US Administration and the African countries."

The pan-African grouping represents 55 member states throughout the continent. It succeeded the Organisation of African Unity - which originated in the decolonisation struggles of the early 1960s - in 2002.

What exactly did Trump say?

The remarks were allegedly made when lawmakers visited him on Thursday to discuss a bipartisan proposal that would impose new restrictions on immigration but protect the so-called "Dreamers" - hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US illegally as children - from deportation.

Mr Trump was said to have told them that instead of granting temporary residency to citizens of countries hit by natural disasters, war or epidemics, the US should instead be taking in migrants from countries like Norway.

"Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" the Washington Post quoted him as saying.

Mr Durbin said that when Mr Trump was told that the largest groups of immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) were from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti, the president responded: "Haitians? Do we need more Haitians?"

But in another tweet on Friday the president denied that he insulted Haitians.

  Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings - unfortunately, no trust!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2018

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter

Many US media outlets reported the comments on Thursday, quoting witnesses or people briefed on the meeting. The White House did not deny them.

What has been the political fallout?

-   "I cannot believe that in the history of the White House, in that Oval Office, any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday," MR DURBIN told reporters on Friday
-   House Speaker PAUL RYAN, a top Republican, said the reported comments were "unfortunate" and "unhelpful"
-   HILLARY CLINTON, who lost to Mr Trump in the 2016 presidential election, said the country had been subjected to his "ignorant, racist views of anyone who doesn't look like him" and noted that it was eight years since Haiti was hit by a devastating earthquake
-   Republican Senators TOM COTTON and DAVID PERDUE, of Arkansas and Georgia, said that they could not remember Mr Trump describing countries as "shitholes" in the meeting
-   MIA LOVE, a Utah Republican and the only Haitian-American in Congress, demanded an apology from Mr Trump for the "unkind, divisive, elitist" comments
-   STEVE KING, a right-wing Republican Congressman from Iowa, backed the president in a tweet:

  The anniversary of the devastating earthquake 8 years ago is a day to remember the tragedy, honor the resilient people of Haiti, & affirm America’s commitment to helping our neighbors. Instead, we‘re subjected to Trump’s ignorant, racist views of anyone who doesn’t look like him.

  — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 12, 2018

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter

Another Republican Senator who was there, Lindsey Graham, did not deny the comments were made. "Following comments by the president, I said my piece directly to him yesterday. The president and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel," he said.

On Friday, Mr Trump ignored press questions about the issue as he signed a proclamation declaring a holiday in honour of civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr - as presidents do every year.

He said Americans were celebrating that "self-evident truth" that "no matter what the colour of our skin or the place of our birth, we are all created equal by God".

What has been the global reaction?

-   BOTSWANA summoned the US ambassador and asked the envoy "to clarify if Botswana is regarded as a 'shithole' country given that there are Botswana nationals residing in the US"
-   UN HUMAN RIGHTS SPOKESMAN Rupert Colville said the comments, if confirmed, were "shocking and shameful", adding: "I'm sorry but there is no other word for this but racist."
-   HAITI'S US Ambassador Paul Altidor told the BBC the idea that "we're simply immigrants who come here to take advantage of the US" is wrong.

media captionWhat is temporary protected status - and why is El Salvador losing it?

More on Trump's first year

media captionWhat the world thinks of Trump

More on this story

-   -   -   -

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Summarize the global reaction to Trump's remarks.

answer: Botswana summoned the US ambassador and asked the ambassador to clarify if Botswana is a "shithole" country. The UN Human Rights Spokesman stated that Trump's comments were "shocking and shameful". The Haitian ambassador said that the idea that they are immigrants who come to take advantage of the U.S. is wrong.

answer: Botswana summoned the US ambassador and asked the ambassador to clarify if Botswana is a "shithole" country. The UN Human Rights Spokesman stated that Trump's comments were "shocking and shameful". The Haitian ambassador said that the idea that they are immigrants who come to take advantage of the U.S. is wrong. Haiti also demanded an apology from Trump.

answer: Botswana summoned the US ambassador and asked the envoy to clarify if Botswana is regarded as a "shithole" country given that there are Botswana nationals residing in the US. UN Human Rights Spokesman Rupert Colville said the comments, if confirmed, were "shocking and shameful", adding that "I'm sorry but there is no other word for this but racist." Haiti's US Ambassador Paul Altidor told the BBC the idea that "we're simply immigrants who come here to take advantage of the US" is wrong.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Summarize what other US politicians had to say about Trump's remarks.

answer: A top Republican, Paul Ryan, referred to Trump's remarks as unfortunate. The only Haitian- American member of congress, Mia Love, said the comments were unkind, divisive, and elitist. House Speaker Paul Ryan said it was unhelpful.

text: This fails to mention comments by Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Dick Durbin, Tom Cotton, David Purdue, and Steve King.

refinement: A top Republican, Paul Ryan, referred to Trump's remarks as unfortunate. The only Haitian- American member of congress, Mia Love, said the comments were unkind, divisive, and elitist. House Speaker Paul Ryan said it was unhelpful. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin were openly critical of Trump's comments, while Republicans Tom Cotton and David Purdue said they didn't recall Trump saying "shitholes,"  Lindsey Graham didn't deny Trump had made the comments, and Steve King backed Trump.

text: There don't need to be two separate sentences quoting Paul Ryan.

refinement: The only Haitian- American member of congress, Mia Love, said the comments were unkind, divisive, and elitist. House Speaker Paul Ryan said it was unhelpful and unfortunate. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin were openly critical of Trump's comments, while Republicans Tom Cotton and David Purdue said they didn't recall Trump saying "shitholes" and Lindsey Graham didn't deny Trump had made them.

answer: A top Republican, Paul Ryan, referred to Trump's remarks as unfortunate. The only Haitian- American member of congress, Mia Love, said the comments were unkind, divisive, and elitist. House Speaker Paul Ryan said it was unhelpful whereas Hillary Clinton pointed to the El Salvador and Honduras country as the ones that would enter the US before Haitian entry. Clinton referred to the speech as eight years after the Haiti disaster. She added that she couldn't believe a comment like that would ever be said by any president of the White House.

answer: Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, said the reported comments were "unfortunate" and "unhelpful". Hillary Clinton said the country had been subjected to Trump's "ignorant, racist views of anyone who doesn't look like him". Tom Cotton and David Perdue, Republican Senators, said they could not remember Trump describing countries as "shitholes". Mia Love, a Haitian-American Republican Congresswoman, demanded an apology from Trump for the "unkind, divisive, elitist" comments. Steve King, a right-wing Republican Congressman from Iowa, backed the president in a tweet.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Summarize Trump's remarks and his response to them.

answer: Trump allegedly said that instead of granting temporary residency to citizens of countries hit by natural disasters, war or epidemics, the US should be taking in migrants from countries like Norway. Trump allegedly said that Haiti is a very poor and troubled country. He has denied the remarks.

text: It is also alleged that Trump called African countries "shitholes" multiple times.

refinement: Trump allegedly said that instead of granting temporary residency to citizens of countries hit by natural disasters, war, or epidemics, the US should be taking in migrants from countries like Norway. Trump allegedly said that Haiti is a very poor and troubled country. He also reportedly called African countries "shitholes" multiple times. He has denied the remarks.

answer: Trump allegedly said that instead of granting temporary residency to citizens of countries hit by natural disasters, war or epidemics, the US should be taking in migrants from countries like Norway. Trump allegedly said that Haiti is a very poor and troubled country.

answer: Trump is alleged to have said that instead of granting temporary residency to citizens of countries hit by natural disasters, war or epidemics, the US should instead be taking in migrants from countries like Norway. He is also alleged to have said that Haiti is a "shithole" country. He has denied using the language attributed to him.


text:
Built up by Theo and his older brother Karl from their mother’s corner shop in the bombed-out rubble of postwar Essen in Germany, the privately controlled Aldi empire now extends to more than 8,000 stores around the world, including 300 in Britain — where its no-frills low-price format rapidly gained popularity during the recession. Though challenged in recent times by rival “discounters” such as Lidl (also German-owned), Aldi achieved sales in 2009 of more than 50 billion euros worldwide.

Little is known of the private lives of the Albrecht family, but Theo’s wealth was estimated by Forbes last year at $16.7 billion, making him the 31st richest person in the world and Germany’s second richest behind Karl at $23.5 billion; the brothers fortunes combined were exceed only by those of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the Mexican Carlos Slim.

The Albrechts’ obsession with privacy — living behind fortress-like security on estates overlooking the Ruhr valley, rarely snapped by paparazzi, never making public statements — derived in part from Theo’s experience in December 1971, when he was kidnapped at gunpoint by Heinz-Joachim Ollenburg, a lawyer with gambling debts, and his accomplice Paul Kron. Theo was held for 17 days in Ollenburg’s Düsseldorf office, but so nondescript was his appearance — he favoured cheap, ill-fitting suits — that the kidnappers demanded to see his ID to make sure they had snatched the right man. He responded by haggling over the ransom sum, which was eventually fixed at seven million Deutschmarks, and was delivered to a highway rendezvous by the Bishop of Essen. Ollenburg and Kron were caught and jailed, but only half of the money was recovered. Albrecht went to court to claim it as a tax-deductible business expense.

Theodor Paul Albrecht was born in the Schonnebeck suburb of Essen, in the industrial Ruhr region, on March 28 1922, two years after his brother Karl. Their father was a miner until emphysema rendered him an invalid; their frugal, hard-working mother ran a small food shop and, in the 1930s, the two youths sold buns around the district from a wooden cart. Both served in the German army during the war: Theo with Rommel’s Afrika Corps until he was eventually captured by US troops in Italy in 1945.

When the brothers were released from prisoner of war camps to return to Essen they found most of the city (a major railway centre which had also been the site of Krupps munitions factories) reduced to ruins, But their mother’s house and shop was intact. They began to expand the business with other grocery outlets, experimenting with a no-frills self-service format and a limited range of merchandise. Within a decade, as Germany’s economic recovery gathered pace, they owned more than 100 stores.

In 1961 they adopted the name Aldi (a contraction of Albrecht Discount) and divided the map of Germany in half — along the so-called Aldi Equator — reportedly after disagreeing over whether or not to sell cigarettes. Theo took control of Aldi Nord, still based in Essen, while Karl, reputedly the more dynamic of the duo in their younger days, ran Aldi Sud from Essen’s sister city of Mulheim.

They later divided the rest of the world, if not quite in such a logical way: Theo’s empire expanded into France, Spain, Portugal and Poland, while Karl’s eventually reached Britain and Australia. And both brothers built operations in the United States, Karl under the Aldi banner and Theo as owner of the Trader Joe’s chain of 340 “gourmet” grocery stores that he acquired in 1979.

At home in Germany the group expanded to 4,000 stores, owned via a number of legally separate operating units which allowed the brothers to co-operate when it suited them but to circumvent laws on accounting disclosure for large businesses and to avoid having to deal with a nationwide workers’ council. They ran their operations with military discipline and attention to detail, and in such secrecy that Aldi managers were forbidden not only to talk to the press but even to talk to their own colleagues in other districts.

Growth was funded out of retained profits rather than public capital-raising, and success was achieved by offering no more than a few hundred well-chosen product lines (rather than the tens of thousands found in other supermarkets) at low prices made possible by massive purchasing. This was combined with a high ratio of sales per square metre of floor space, and ferocious cost control — the latter being Theo’s special skill.

Little money was wasted on marketing, and none at all on making Aldi stores look elegant: goods were simply piled up along the aisles in packing cases. Theo himself made a point of using pencil stubs rather than expensive pens. Asked to approve the plans for a new outlet in Holland, he replied that the design was good but the paper it was drawn on was too thick: “If you use thinner paper we will save money.”

A devout Roman Catholic, Theo Albrecht retired from the day-to-day running of the business in 1993, but remained active as chairman of the foundation that is Aldi Nord’s principal shareholder. He is survived by his wife Cilli, their sons Theo Jr and Berthold, who hold management positions in Aldi, and his brother Karl, now 90.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the text say about privacy?

answer: The Albrecht family obsesses over privacy. They have always lived behind fortress-like security on estates in what is assumed to be the Ruhr Valley. Rarely are they captured by paparazzi. They made all deaths public information, but private wealth? They dodge public records on how large Aldi stores are. Theo does not want to save future prices for his company for large investors, saying only "do what you want; we don't ask for demonstrations. Send us an invoice." The brothers run their operations with military discipline and with vigilance for detail, often being led in secrecy about the operations of their stores.  The brothers and their relatives follow stringent schedules and duties daily, never making themselves public whether it be as owners of a public company or to build stores.

text: One of the sentences is awkward in that it ends in a question mark-presumably for the reader-which lends an odd and inaccurate feeling of familiarity to a summary. Summaries are supposed to be more clinical and topical.

refinement: The Albrecht family obsesses over privacy. They have always lived behind fortress-like security on estates in what is assumed to be the Ruhr Valley. Rarely are they captured by paparazzi. They made all deaths public information, but kept the financial records private. They dodge public records on how large Aldi stores are. Theo does not want to save future prices for his company for large investors, saying only "do what you want; we don't ask for demonstrations. Send us an invoice." The brothers run their operations with military discipline and with vigilance for detail, often being led in secrecy about the operations of their stores.  The brothers and their relatives follow stringent schedules and duties daily, never making themselves public whether it be as owners of a public company or to build stores.

answer: The Albrecht brothers' obsession with privacy comes from Theo's experience in being kidnapped. He was held for 17 days in a Düsseldorf office and the kidnappers only realized who he was because he haggled over the ransom sum. Theo and Karl divide the world up between them, with Theo focusing on operations in France, Spain, Portugal and Poland, and Karl in Britain and Australia. The brothers run their operations with military discipline and with an attention to detail and they do not spend money marketing their stores. Theo retired from day-to-day operations in 1993 but remains as chairman of the foundation.

answer: Theo Albrecht and his brother ran their empire secretly through a shell company, which kept their business transactions private. Theo and Karl rarely spoke to the press or to journalists, preferring to be mostly inscrutable - or an enigma. They seemed to value privacy above all else: even the list of stores they owned was a carefully guarded secret. They ran the business with military discipline and attention to detail, delegating responsibilities strictly to avoid losing control of their empire.

answer: The text describes the Albrecht brothers' obsession with privacy, presumably in order to prevent personal attacks or harassment. The brothers instituted a rule forbidding managers to speak openly even to their coworkers, in order to avoid personal publicity of any kind.

answer: Little is known about the private lives of the Albrecht family due to their obsession with privacy. The obsession with privacy seems to stem from when Theo was kidnapped at gunpoint and held for ransom. The family lives behind fortress-like security on estates, are rarely snapped by paparazzi, and never make public statements. The Aldi empire is privately controlled, and runs in such secrecy that Aldi managers can't speak to the press or even their own colleagues in other districts.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the text say about Aldi's divisions?

answer: The company is split into two divisions: Aldi Nord, based in Essen, and Aldi Sud, based in Essen's sister city of Mulheim. Theo Albrecht owns both divisions but Karl Albrecht runs Aldi Sud. The two operate worldwide under the Aldi name, though Theo Albrecht has some ownership in the Trader Joe's chain in the United States.

answer: The Albrecht brothers, Theo and Karl, split the map of Germany in half along what they referred to as the Aldi Equator, using that line to divide their diversified empire into operations. The Albrecht empire expanded into France, Spain, Portugal, and Poland, and then eventually into Britain and Australia. Eventually, the brothers split their operations in the US when Theo bought the Trader Joe's grocery store chain.

answer: The Aldi empire is divided in half with the brothers running their operations from two different cities. Theo Albrecht runs Aldi Nord from the city of Essen while Karl Albrecht runs Aldi Sud from the city of Mulheim. Both brothers expand their operations into France, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and both have business ventures in the United States.

answer: Aldi started as just Theo and Karl Albrecht's mother's corner shop. Over a decade, they adopted the name Aldi and split Aldi up into Aldi Nord and Aldi Sud. In 1961, the brothers adopted the name Aldi and divided the map of Germany in half - the so-called Aldi Equator - to disagree over whether or not to sell cigarettes. Theo took control of Aldi Nord, and Karl, ran Aldi Sud, the sister city of Mulheim. They eventually divided the rest of the world to run their empire. But the brothers put equal effort in building the businesses when needed as a company, which is how they were able to grow in secrecy.

answer: Aldi was named and divided in half through Germany in 1961. Theo took control of Aldi Nord, and Karl ran Aldi Sud. Later on they further divided the rest of the world. Theo took France, Spain, Portugal, and Poland, and Karl took Britain and Australia. When they took their operations to the United States, more division came when Karl worked under Aldi and Theo became the owner of Trader Joe's in 1979.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

Summarize Theo's traits.

answer: Theo was known for his simple tastes and refusal to compromise price. He was said to be a shrewd negotiator, always asking for less than he initially wanted, and with an eye for detail. He stuck with a minimalistic, no-frills approach. He avoided public appearances, favoring company and family.

answer: It is said that Theo was nondescript and wore cheap, ill-fitting suits. He pursued a tax-deductible business expense after being kidnapped for ransom at gunpoint. According to the article, Theo was one is saved only because his kidnappers asked for ID.

answer: Theo was the 31st richest person in the world, and Germany's second richest. Theo was a very private person, and little was known about his private life. He favored cheap, ill-fitting suits. Cost control was one of Theo's special skills, once complaining that the paper used for plans of a new outlet was too thick. He was also a devout Roman Catholic, and worked until he was in his 70s.

answer: Theo Albrecht was frugal, motivated by business efficiency, obsessed with secrecy and detail, and focused on growth through cost-cutting.

answer: Theo Albrecht was a businessman known for his relentless focus on cost-cutting and efficiency. He also had a strong religious faith, and oversaw the Aldi Nord business empire from behind fortress-like security measures. While Theo was once very active in the day-to-day operations, he retired from this role in 1993.

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the text say about the cost effectiveness of Aldi?

answer: The text says that Theo Albrecht made a point of using pencils rather than expensive pens, and that Aldi's success was achieved by offering few product lines at low prices. All of this indicates that Aldi is extremely cost effective.

answer: The Albrecht family is known for running their stores at low prices using intense cost control and monetizing every square foot of space. Theo Albrecht was known for personally using a pencil stub to take notes instead of high-quality pens. Adhering to this model allowed the Aldi stores to operate with very low overhead costs. In later years, Aldi Nord retained its low-cost, high-profit model with fewer stores to cut down on their costs.

answer: According to the passage, Aldi is able to offer low prices by focusing on a limited range of products and implementing strict cost control measures.

answer: Hat very cost-effective chain allows for the retention of a high ratio of sales per square meter of floor space. It offers a limited selection of products at a very cheap price, most of which comes from massive purchasing and cost-containment procedures. There are pencils that Theo himself prefers over the pricier pens. The profits are not done through capital-raising, but through retention.

answer: Aldi was created by the Albrecht's as a no-frills-low-price store. To keep costs down there was a limited range of merchandise, a self service format, little money spent on marketing, and none on making Aldi look elegant. Massive purchasing of this limited merchandise also kept prices down. Theo's skill in cost control was a great asset to this.


text:
MICHAEL PARIENTE is a Las Vegas-based criminal defense attorney and the founder of Pariente Law Firm, P.C.[1] He has served as lead counsel in several high-profile cases, including _Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court_, which entitled every defendant charged with misdemeanor domestic battery to a jury trial in the State of Nevada. The case has been called “the most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century.”[2]

Background

Pariente graduated with a degree in Business Administration at the University of New Mexico in 1990 and received a master's degree in Public Affairs from the University of Texas at Austin in 1995.[3] He received his J.D. degree from Baylor Law School in 1998.[4] Pariente is admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada and the State of Texas. He previously served as an Assistant District Attorney for DUI prosecutions and as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in El Paso, Texas.[5]

Pariente is the son of Esther Pariente-Ahmed and electrical engineer and computer scientist Nasir Ahmed.

Noteworthy cases

_Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court_

In 2019, Pariente successfully litigated what has been called “the most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century.”[6]

In _Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court_, the defendant was charged with battery which constitutes domestic violence, a first offense, and was set to stand trial in the Las Vegas Municipal Court. He asked for a jury trial, but in accordance with longstanding Nevada law, was told he was not entitled to a jury for a misdemeanor charge. He pled no contest and was found guilty, and appealed his conviction based on the fact that he was denied his right to a jury.[7]

The case eventually made it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Pariente argued that a defendant charged with battery constituting domestic violence has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because a defendant loses his or her Second Amendment right upon conviction of the offense by letting a judge, and not a jury, decide guilt or innocence.[8] The Court reversed the defendant's conviction, and declared that henceforth, for the first time since Nevada became a state in 1864, every defendant charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a jury trial.

“The Nevada Supreme Court’s Sept. 12 decision held that misdemeanor domestic violence defendants are entitled to a jury trial because of a 2017 law banning those convicted of the crime from owning guns. The ban on gun ownership elevated the crime from a petty offense that doesn’t entitle a defendant to a jury to a more serious offense with jury rights, the court said.”[9]

Aftermath of _Andersen_

Following the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in _Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court_, many cities, including the city of Las Vegas, have fought to undermine the verdict.[10] Pariente has been critical of Las Vegas City Council and its efforts to bypass the verdict by enacting its own ordinance which circumvents the law created by the Nevada Supreme Court in _Andersen._ Pariente has publicly called the ordinance “absurd, pathetic and desperate” and has vowed to take the matter to the Nevada Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary.”[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

title: Michael Pariente

question:
Answer the following question based on the above passage:

What does the text say is a notable achievement of Michael Pariente?

answer: In 2019, Pariente successfully litigated what has been called "the most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century." In the case, the defendant was charged with battery which constitutes domestic violence, a first offense, and was set to stand trial in the Las Vegas Municipal Court. He asked for a jury trial, but in accordance with longstanding Nevada law, was told he was not entitled to a jury for a misdemeanor charge. He pled no contest and was found guilty, and appealed his conviction based on the fact that he was denied his right to a jury. The case eventually made it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Pariente argued that a defendant charged with battery constituting domestic violence has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because a defendant loses his or her Second Amendment right upon conviction of the offense by letting a judge, and not a jury, decide guilt or innocence. The Court reversed the defendant's conviction, and declared that henceforth, for the first time since Nevada became a state in 1864, every defendant charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a jury trial. Following the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court, many cities, including the city of Las Vegas, have fought to undermine the verdict.

answer: Pariente successfully litigated "the most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century."

answer: In 2019, Pariente successfully litigated what has been called "the most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century." In the case, the defendant was charged with battery which constitutes domestic violence, a first offense, and was set to stand trial in the Las Vegas Municipal Court. He asked for a jury trial, but in accordance with longstanding Nevada law, was told he was not entitled to a jury for a misdemeanor charge. He pled no contest and was found guilty, and appealed his conviction based on the fact that he was denied his right to a jury. The case eventually made it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Pariente argued that a defendant charged with battery constituting domestic violence has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because a defendant loses his or her Second Amendment right upon conviction of the offense by letting a judge, and not a jury, decide guilt or innocence. The Court reversed the defendant's conviction, and declared that henceforth, for the first time since Nevada became a state in 1864, every defendant charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a jury trial.


text:
Once, we were brothers.

Once, almost seems like a whole life ago, I stood by him and we fought and we bled and we *killed* together.

We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict, a war which would later take more lives than Iraq and destroy more infrastructure than the Great War. We fought together in a conflict that, one day, only we would understand. And no politician could fathom what we saw there, no civilian could've known how we bled.

We shared bullets, bottles, and blood - when we were brothers.

We were stationed with Alpha Squad. We led all the missions, he and I. I was sergeant; he was corporal. All the men in that squad were our brothers, and we were theirs. I can still remember a time when I would've taken a bat to the head for any of those guys.

Now, I stand before him, and we are no longer brothers.

Somehow, the politics ate him. Probably ate me, too, he'd say. But now I'm sitting in an airport in Crimea and he has a gun to my head. And if anyone bothered to look up they wouldn't have thought for a moment that we were brothers.

But we were. Once.

Now he's a nationalist. Defected after the war, and found Russia to be his home, his country. I stayed with the US, and all he could say to me was how blind I'd become. After all we'd been through, as brothers, he couldn't believe I'd still take their side.

But I didn't. I just want my pension. I just want to go home. So does Alpha Squad. They're sitting next to me, but their eyes are far away. I don't bother to call to them. This isn't their business.

I look up at him. The barrel is staring down my face. He's smiling.

"Once, we were brothers," he said.

"Still are," I replied, "Only we've seen what you've seen."

"No," he lowers the pistol, "No, that's not it at all. You viewed what I did, but you didn't see. None of you did. Or you'd be on my side."

"I'm on no one's side. I just want to go home," my voice wavers, "I'm tired. I miss my family."

"We're your family," he raises the pistol again, "None of those fucks at home knows what happened here."

"Maybe it's better they don't know," I turn away, toward the rest of the squad. They're all busy in their own little worlds.

The engineer specialist has a happy little grin on his face. He's remembering that time we saved those two kids after we accidentally killed their parents while we were clearing out an apartment complex. Those two kids later got blown up by a landmine. But he's not remembering that.

Our sniper and spotter are talking, hushed, about what they'll do when they get home. I heard they might get married and move to South America. They want to forget what happened here. I know they never will.

The new guy is sitting, chattering his teeth. He never got used to combat, because he deployed a week before our squad was relieved from duty - two weeks before the war ended. He still has the nighttime chills from killing. He's grasping a folder in his hand - for his psychologist, when he's back stateside.

The airport is filled with people: refugees fleeing the war zone, servicemen and women going home, and children waiting for parents. No one notices us two.

"They're right. You're just a soldier," he puts the pistol away, "You don't get the bigger picture. But that's okay. Some of you aren't meant to. I'll see you boys stateside - in one piece or in a casket."

"You're not gonna shoot me?" I ask.

"No, because we were brothers," he replied. He disappears into the crowd.

I look down at my dog tags. No one will remember what we did here. The hippies will cuss us out; the families will avoid us; the government will ignore us.

But we'll have each other. Because, once, we were brothers. And once is enough.

title: [SP] Once

question: What does the narrator mean by "once, we were brothers"?

answer: They were brother combatants and worked together on the same team. The veterans they soldiered with fell out with what they saw, they wanted nothing more to do with combat, they wanted to put it behind them, whereas the narrator felt they had to stay to protect each other.

text: The second sentence is unclear, especially the part about the narrator wanting to stay.

refinement: They were brother combatants and worked together on the same team. The veterans they soldiered with fell out with what they saw, they wanted nothing more to do with combat, they wanted to put it behind them.

text: The two protagonists fell out, not the veterans.

refinement: They were brother combatants and worked together on the same team, but they fell out.

text: The reason they fell out should be mentioned.

refinement: They were brother combatants and worked together on the same team, but they fell out when one of them defected to Russia.

text: Evidence that they were brothers: 'I stood by him and we fought and we bled and we killed together,' 'We were part of the 5th Company'

answer: It seems the narrator is referring to the time they shared in their militia unit.

text: The reason why they aren't brothers now should be mentioned.

refinement: It seems the narrator is referring to the time they shared in their militia unit, but they are no longer brothers after one of them defected to Russia.

text: I'm not sure if the militia is the right term. It seems to be the US Army.

refinement: It seems the narrator is referring to the time they shared in the army, but they are no longer brothers after one of them defected to Russia.

text: 'We were part of the 5th Company'

answer: He and his friend from the army were very close when they were stationed with the Alpha Squad, but now his friend has defected to Russia and is threatening to kill him.

text:
'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine'
'Now he's a nationalist. Defected after the war, and found Russia to be his home'
'He has a gun to my head'

question: When was the narrator part of the 5th Company?

answer: The narrator was part of the 5th Company during the Crimean Conflict.

text: 'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict'

answer: He was part of the 5th Company during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict in Ukraine.

text: 'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict'

answer: The narrator was part of the 5th Company during the Crimean Conflict.

text: 'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict'

question: Why does the narrator say "the hippies will avoid us"?

answer: He's referring to the combat and violence he probably perpetuated in Ukraine.

text: The answer is unclear, or, to be more precise, the connection between the violence and the hippies in unclear. Hippies are generally for peace and against war, so that is probably the reason.

refinement: He's referring to the hippies' stance. They are for peace and against war and violence.

answer: Indicating that the hippies (alternative lifestyle people) will probably tell the public that there's something wrong with people with military backgrounds i.e. like him.

text: 'There's something wrong with people with military backgrounds' is maybe not the best way to describe it. Hippies are generally against war and for peace.

refinement: Indicating that the hippies (alternative lifestyle people who generally stand for peace) will probably tell the public that the war was wrong.

answer: Because his brother now believes he's on the opposite side of their beliefs.

text: The hippies remark has no connection to the brother. It is about hippies who are generally for peace and against war.

question: Does the narrator experience betrayal?

answer: Yes, the narrator experiences betrayal from his former brother who is now a nationalist and has defected. The brother is happy not to shoot the narrator on their final goodbye and understands that he is simply "just a soldier" and does not understand the "big picture."

text: The second sentence might not be necessary at all.

refinement: Yes, the narrator experiences betrayal from his former brother who is now a nationalist and has defected.

text: Better word order would probably make the sentence clearer.

refinement: Yes, the narrator experiences betrayal from his former brother who had defected and is now a nationalist.

text:
'Now, I stand before him, and we are no longer brothers'
'Somehow, the politics ate him'
'Now he's a nationalist'

answer: Yes, his friend from the army defected and made Russia his home. The narrator stuck to his life in the U.S., and now his friend has gun to his head.

text: An article is missing.

refinement: Yes, his friend from the army defected and made Russia his home. The narrator stuck to his life in the U.S., and now his friend has a gun to his head.

text:
'Now, I stand before him, and we are no longer brothers.'
'Now he's a nationalist. Defected after the war, and found Russia to be his home.'
'he has a gun to my head'

answer: Yes, it seems like the narrator has experienced a sense of betrayal from his former comrade. They were once brothers but now are pitted against each other, and the former comrade shoots the narrator down despite the fact that they were once close.

text: The narrator's former brother-in-arms does not shoot him at all.

refinement: Yes, it seems like the narrator has experienced a sense of betrayal from his former comrade. They were once brothers but now are pitted against each other.

text: 'Now, I stand before him, and we are no longer brothers.'

question: What is the most heroic moment of the story?

answer: Coming out alive from a combat zone.

text: The question is too vague and subjective.

answer: Technically it would be when the narrator and his friend saved two kids, but they also killed their parents. It's hard to say if that is heroic.

text: The answer could also be just that the question is too vague.

text: 'He's remembering that time we saved those two kids after we accidentally killed their parents'

answer: At the beginning, the narrator is saved by his brother after a reluctant shooter came to recognize and understand how his brothers view the world and his experience.

text: The answer completely confuses the characters and the events in the story. The narrator's former brother-in-arms is the one who has the gun to his head now. Also, this has nothing to do with heroism.

question: Write a ~4 sentence summary.

answer: The narrator and his brother are both soldiers, and they fought together in a war. They come from the US, and the narrator's brother joined Russia following the war. At the time of the story, they're at an airport in Crimea. The brother tries to convince the narrator to join him and Russia, but the narrator is not swayed.

text: It's not that the narrator's former brother-in-arms wants to convince him to come to the Russian side. He wants to kill him.

refinement: The narrator and his brother are both soldiers, and they fought together in a war. They come from the US, and the narrator's brother joined Russia following the war. At the time of the story, they're at an airport in Crimea, and the narrator's former brother-in-arms has a gun to his head. However, he doesn't shoot him.

text: From the summary, it might be concluded that the other protagonist is really the narrator's brother.

refinement: The narrator and his 'brother-in-arms' are both soldiers, and they fought together in a war. They come from the US, and the narrator's brother joined Russia following the war. At the time of the story, they're at an airport in Crimea, and the narrator's former brother-in-arms has a gun to his head. However, he doesn't shoot him.

text:
'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict'
'Now he's a nationalist. Defected after the war, and found Russia to be his home, his country. I stayed with the US.'

answer: The narrator is at an airport in Crimea. His brother has a gun to his head that he's threatening to shoot. A conflict from when they were both in the military many years before is mentioned. The conflict didn't change a lot or result in much tangible gain, but people are still divided on it. The brother is a nationalist who opposed the war and is from Russia, while the narrator is an American.

text: The last sentence is incorrect. They are both Americans, and they fought together for the US Army, but the narrator's fellow soldier defected to Russia.

refinement: The narrator is at an airport in Crimea. His brother has a gun to his head that he's threatening to shoot. A conflict from when they were both in the military many years before is mentioned. The conflict didn't change a lot or result in much tangible gain, but people are still divided on it. The narrator's former brother had defected to Russia and is now on Russia's side.

text: It should be mentioned that the narrator's former 'brother' didn't shoot him in the end.

refinement: The narrator is at an airport in Crimea. His brother has a gun to his head that he's threatening to shoot. A conflict from when they were both in the military many years before is mentioned. The conflict didn't change a lot or result in much tangible gain, but people are still divided on it. The narrator's former brother had defected to Russia and is now on Russia's side, but he decides not to shoot the narrator in the end and leaves.

text: From the summary, the narrator's fellow soldier could be misinterpreted as his real brother.

refinement: The narrator is at an airport in Crimea. His former brother-in-arms has a gun to his head that he's threatening to shoot. A conflict from when they were both in the military many years before is mentioned. The conflict didn't change a lot or result in much tangible gain, but people are still divided on it. The narrator's brother had defected to Russia and is now on Russia's side, but he decides not to shoot the narrator in the end and leaves.

text:
'But now I'm sitting in an airport in Crimea and he has a gun to my head.'
'No one will remember what we did here'

answer: The time period of the story is undefined, although it seems as if it is set sometime in the present, or after Sept. 11th, 2001. The relation between the protagonist and the person with the gun is that they both used to be part of the same military company. The conflict in the story appears to be Crimea, although this information isn't mentioned. The protagonist's point of view seems marginalized, as he feels unworthy of his brothers' acknowledgement.

text: The conflict in question is the Crimean Conflict, and it is in fact clearly mentioned.

refinement: The time period of the story is undefined, although it seems as if it is set sometime in the present, or after Sept. 11th, 2001. The relation between the protagonist and the person with the gun is that they both used to be part of the same military company during the Crimean conflict. The protagonist's point of view seems marginalized, as he feels unworthy of his brothers' acknowledgement.

text: The last sentence is very unclear. They are on opposing sides now, so I don't know if it is really about acknowledgment.

refinement: The time period of the story is undefined, although it seems as if it is set sometime in the present, or after Sept. 11th, 2001. The relation between the protagonist and the person with the gun is that they both used to be part of the same military company during the Crimean conflict.

text: It should be mentioned that the two are now on opposing sides.

refinement: The time period of the story is undefined, although it seems as if it is set sometime in the present, or after Sept. 11th, 2001. The relation between the protagonist and the person with the gun is that they both used to be part of the same military company during the Crimean conflict, but the protagonist's former brother-in-arms had defected and they are now on opposite sides.

text: It should be mentioned that the man doesn't shoot the narrator.

refinement: The time period of the story is undefined, although it seems as if it is set sometime in the present, or after Sept. 11th, 2001. The relation between the protagonist and the person with the gun is that they both used to be part of the same military company during the Crimean conflict, but the protagonist's former brother-in-arms had defected and they are now on opposite sides. However, the person does not shoot the narrator in the end.

text:
'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean conflict, a war which would later take more lives than Iraq.'
'he has a gun to my head.'

answer: The protagonist travels from Ukraine to the Crimean airport. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into a nationalist from his squad. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist is giving the protagonist a gun and threatening violence. The protagonist and the rest of Alpha Squad were sent to Ukraine as a squad.

text: The narrator is at a Crimean airport, not traveling to Crimea.

refinement: The protagonist is at an airport in Crimea. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into a nationalist from his squad. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist is giving the protagonist a gun and threatening violence. The protagonist and the rest of Alpha Squad were sent to Ukraine as a squad.

text: He doesn't run into a nationalist. He runs into his former brother-in-arms who had defected to Russia.

refinement: The protagonist is at an airport in Crimea. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into his former brother-in-arms who had defected to Russia and is now a Russian nationalist. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist is giving the protagonist a gun and threatening violence. The protagonist and the rest of Alpha Squad were sent to Ukraine as a squad.

text: The nationalist doesn't give the protagonist a gun, he has a gun to his head.

refinement: The protagonist is at an airport in Crimea. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into his former brother-in-arms who had defected to Russia. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist has a gun to the protagonist's head. The protagonist and the rest of Alpha Squad were sent to Ukraine as a squad.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary. The information about the protagonist being a soldier should be mentioned earlier.

refinement: The protagonist is a US Army soldier sitting at an airport in Crimea. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into his former brother-in-arms who had defected to Russia. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist has a gun to the protagonist's head.

text: It should be mentioned that the nationalist doesn't shoot the protagonist in the end.

refinement: The protagonist is a US Army soldier sitting at an airport in Crimea. While waiting for his flight back to America, he runs into his former brother-in-arms who had defected to Russia. Despite everything they went through not too long ago, the nationalist has a gun to the protagonist's head. However, he leaves in the end without shooting the protagonist.

answer: The narrator is in a conflict that consumes him. He says it was the largest war to destroy the most infrastructure. His relations with his brother, a corporal, change as they both learn to assimilate their violent experiences. His militia pleads to the soldier that he cannot divulge his reasons for needing to go home, and no one in his country needs to know the horrors that he has seen and experienced.

text: The answer is very confusing and completely misses the points of the story and the events. It needs a complete overhaul.

answer: The narrator discusses the bond he shared with a man who had been his "brother" while in the army when they were deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict. The man has since defected to Russia and the narrator stayed in the U.S., to the man's political disapproval. The narrator is currently in an airport with the man's gun to his head. Despite the man's disdain for the narrator, he decides not to shoot since they were once like brothers.

text:
'We were part of 5th Company, deployed to Ukraine during the escalation of the Crimean Conflict.'
'Now, he's a nationalist. Defected after the war, and found Russia to be his home, his country. I stayed with the US.'
'But now I'm sitting in an airport in Crimea and he has a gun to my head.'
'He puts the pistol away.'


text:
A little introduction to this writing: The year is 1997. You have to realize that this year was significant as how we contacted our friends. We were at the start of the mobile generation. People my age, 16 at the time, did not have mobile phones unless their parents were rich, mine weren’t and even if they were, my friends didn’t have mobile phones. So to contact friends you would call to their house and ask their parents if they are present. If not, you would probably have to search for them at spots they might be at.

----------

It's the last Friday evening of summer holiday. I had received my student travel card (free travel in public transport) earlier that day and even though I hadn’t planned anything that evening, I decide to catch a train and try to find my friends who live in a city nearby. I grab my bike, light up a spliff and head of to the train station. At this time of evening, there aren't much people at the station. I'm glad because smoking weed makes me paranoid sometimes. It makes me feel as if people are staring.

As I enter the train, the sun has already set and the absence of most of the moon, because of the time of the month, makes it darker than usual. As the train starts to leave I get the sudden urge to get out. Is it the weed that drives me or some outside force? I don’t know why but I lost the interest of visiting my friends that evening. So I get out at the next station and head for the platform for the return train. I’m the only one there.

As I light a cigarette and just sit there with not much to distract me other than my thoughts, I notice a girl is passing me by. A beautiful girl with long black curly hair and large dark eyes. I can see that she has been crying, because of the red and puffy eyes. She looks middle-eastern to me. Young, probably just a little older than me. She is wearing a white summer dress. Not tight but it outlines her butcheeks by the way she is standing. Her back shows just enough skin and my teenage hormones are starting to rage. I can only imagine the things I want to do to her before I awaken from my thoughts. I hear the rumbling of the train and see the girl standing on the edge of the platform, about 60 feet away from me. It’s dark, but the lanterns shine bright enough for me to see that her shoulders are shaking a bit. I hear a faint cry. I realize what is about to take place.
I need to act. I do not want to see her organs all over the place, nor do I want to be stuck there for hours. There is nothing heroic about this, I am just thinking about my own interests. Might she even go down on me? My hormones still rage. I walk to her, she hasn’t noticed me yet. She jumps on the tracks.

At this point my focus shifts. I hear no sound but see everything so clear. Because of the bright lights of the incoming train I can’t estimate the distance but it looks like I can make it. My heart skips a beat. I jump on the tracks and pick her up as if she weighs nothing. The fabric of her dress is so thin it feels like I am toughing her skin. I don't want to let go, I want to keep my hands on her. So soft. I lift her on the platform and jump on there just in time as I feel the warm summer wind of the passing train. It was too close. Sound returns and I hear the ear deafening sound of shrieking brakes on the train. The girl is crying frantically. She speaks English with a thick accent: “I don’t want to live, I don’t want to live, why, why?”. I realize I can’t help her. What do I know of her problems? I’m just a 16 year old horny boy with a pretty easy life. I don’t understand her pain. I decide to hug her, my hands on her waist. She feels warm. The only reason she doesn't feel my excitement against her belly is because she is in shock. The train engineer is suddenly standing behind me and asks "Do you need help?" I let go as I realize he is talking to her. He walks to the girl. She clearly doesn’t want to be helped and runs off. The engineer turns to me: “Thanks. I don’t know what else to say, just thanks.” I realize why. I can see his eyes are watery and just say: “No problem, mind if I get in?” I ask because this is the intercity that isn’t supposed to stop at this train station. He doesn’t mind. I get in the (nearly empty) train and after a minute the train conductor joins me. He sits down and stays silent for half a minute as he looks at me. He thanks me for preventing a ruined weekend. His daughter is going to celebrate her 4th birthday. He wanted me to know that. I don't understand why he tells me. He hands me a flyer about how to contact some -help after trauma- center. I throw it away, I don’t need help.

Fast forward 3 weeks. School has started. It’s a new school for me by the way. We are having lunch and a class mate is telling me about her aunt, who saw a few weeks before that, from her home, how some guy selflessly saved a girl from getting run over by a train on that station. I said nothing while my hormones started to rage again.

note: I don't write. I have never written anything other than this and will probably never write again. Besides my mother, who doesn't live anymore I never told anyone so I decided to write it down.
Also, English isn't my native language so I will blame any mistake/error/grammatical flaw to that.
Lastly, I have never heard about the girl again. I sometimes wonder if she tried again, why she was crying and didn't want to live. I hope she is happy.

title: [NF] Selfishly

question: Who does the narrator save from the train?

answer: A middle eastern girl.

text: This response has made an inaccurate assumption about the ethnicity of the girl in the story. The "middle eastern" part needs to be taken out of the response.

text: Turning this response into a full sentence would help enhance the response.

refinement: A girl is who the narrator saved from the train.

answer: The narrator saves a young woman from being hit by a train.

answer: The narrator saves a girl from the train.

answer: A girl who is about his age.

text: Making this response a proper statement would enhance it

refinement: A girl who is about his age, is who the narrator saved from the train.

question: Why does the narrator save her from the train?

answer: The narrator saves her from the train because he is horny and wants to have sex with her.

answer: He does not want to have to deal with the waiting a death would mean and he is attracted to her.

text: The wording in this response is off and needs to be restructured.

refinement: He does not want to have to deal with the implications of what would happen if the young girl died and he is attracted to her.

answer: He doesn't know why he does it. He just does it.

text: This is an incorrect response and a more accurate response needs to be generated.

refinement: The narrator saves the young girl from the train for his own best interest as he is attracted to her.

answer: The narrator saves the girl from the train because he feels empathy for her and wants to prevent her from being injured or killed. He does not know her story or why she was crying, but he feels compelled to help her.

text: This response is not accurate and an accurate response needs to be generated.

refinement: The narrator saves the girl from the train because he feels attracted towards her.

question: What does the train conductor give the narrator?

answer: The train conductor gives the narrator a flyer about a help center for people who have experienced trauma.

answer: The train conductor gives the narrator a flyer about how to contact some help after trauma center.

text: The wording at the end of this response is off and needs to be fixed.

refinement: The train conductor gives the narrator a flyer about how to contact someone for help at a trauma center.

text: No response is given and a proper response needs to be generated.

refinement: The train conductor gives the narrator a flyer about a help center for people who have experienced trauma.

answer: A trauma booklet.

text: This response can be changed and expanded to portray the exact words used in the passage.

refinement: A flyer for a help center for a trauma center.

text: This response can be turned into a full sentence to enhance the response.

refinement: A flyer for a help center for a trauma center is given to the narrator from the train conductor.

question: Does the narrator ever tell anyone this story?

answer: No

answer: No, he never told anyone.

answer: No, the narrator never tells anyone this story.

text: No response is given and a proper response needs to be generated.

refinement: The narrator never tells anyone this story.

question: Write a ~5 sentence summary.

answer: The narrator recalls a time when he saved a girl from jumping in front of a train. He feels conflicted about his actions, as he doesn't understand her pain, but is glad he was able to help her. He reflects on the girl's situation from time to time, wondering if she is happy now.

text: This is a very inaccurate summary of the passage and needs to be re-written.

refinement: The narrator recalls a time when he saved a girl from jumping in front of a train. He saved the girl for his own self interest, as he was very much attracted to her. The narrator saved the girl and later on in school, he overhears a classmate  saying  how some gentlemen had saved her aunt from the train.

answer: The narrator is 16 years old and has just received his student travel card. He decides to take the train to visit his friends. He sees a girl on the platform and decides to help her. He jumps on the tracks and picks her up. The girl is crying and says she doesn't want to live. The narrator doesn't understand her pain and decides to hug her.

text: This summary has left out very important key details from the passage and needs to be re-written.

refinement: The narrator is 16 years old and has just received his student travel card. He decides to take the train to visit his friends. He sees a girl on the platform about to kill herself and decides to help her. He jumps on the tracks and picks her up. The girl is crying and says she doesn't want to live. The narrator doesn't understand her pain and decides to hug her.

answer: The protagonist is a 16 year old boy who is on a train and sees a girl jump in front of the train. He jumps in front of the train and saves her. He then gets on the train and the conductor thanks him.

answer: In 1997 the narrator, then 16, sees a girl about to kill herself on a train platform. He jumps in front of it and saves her because he is attracted to her. She runs away. The train conductor thanks him and gives him a book about trauma. He never tells anyone, although some of his friends talk about the guy who saved the girl by the train.

text: The train conductor gives the narrator a flyer, not a book, and that key detail needs to be changed in the response.

refinement: In 1997 the narrator, then 16, sees a girl about to kill herself on a train platform. He jumps in front of it and saves her because he is attracted to her. She runs away. The train conductor thanks him and gives him a flyer that he can use to contact a trauma center. He never tells anyone, although some of his friends talk about the guy who saved the girl by the train.