instruction stringlengths 209 9.87k | response stringlengths 2 279 | text stringlengths 290 9.95k |
|---|---|---|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many total touchdown passing yards did Cutler have? | 27 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many total touchdown passing yards did Cutler have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
27<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many touchdown passing yards did Rivers have? | 129 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many touchdown passing yards did Rivers have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
129<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: Which player had more touchdown yards, Sproles or Chambers? | Sproles | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: Which player had more touchdown yards, Sproles or Chambers?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Sproles<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many yards longer was Kaeding's longest field goal compared with his shortest? | 6 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many yards longer was Kaeding's longest field goal compared with his shortest?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
6<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many more field goals did Kaeding kick compared with Prater? | 2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Coming off their dominating divisional road win over the Raiders, the Broncos played their Week 2 home opener against the AFC West foe, the San Diego Chargers. In the first quarter, Denver was first out of the gate as FB Michael Pittman got a 1-yard TD run. The Chargers would respond with kicker Nate Kaeding getting a 34-yard field goal. In the second quarter, Denver replied with QB Jay Cutler completing a 3-yard and a 14-yard TD pass to TE Tony Scheffler. San Diego would immediately respond with RB Darren Sproles returning the kickoff 103 yards for a touchdown, yet the Broncos replied with rookie kicker Matt Prater getting a 52-yard field goal. The Chargers would strike as their lead as QB Philip Rivers completed a 48-yard TD pass to WR Chris Chambers, yet Denver retaliated with Cutler completing a 6-yard TD pass to WR Brandon Marshall. In the third quarter, San Diego started to rally as Rivers completed a 15-yard TD pass to Chambers, and Kaeding kicked a 21-yard field goal. In the fourth quarter, the Chargers took the lead with Kaeding's 28-yard field goal and Rivers' 66-yard TD pass to Sproles. Fortunately, the Broncos responded with a 12-play, 80-yard drive (which included a controversial officiating call that turned a Cutler fumble into an incomplete pass) that was capped off with Cutler's 4-yard TD pass to rookie WR Eddie Royal, followed by Cutler's successful 2-point conversion pass to Royal. Brandon Marshall's 18 receptions would become a single-game franchise record and tie for 2nd most in league history.
Question: How many more field goals did Kaeding kick compared with Prater?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many children of the 23686 households were under the age of 18 and living at home? | 7532.148 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many children of the 23686 households were under the age of 18 and living at home?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
7532.148<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group had more people living at home with no spouse present, female or male? | female | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group had more people living at home with no spouse present, female or male?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
female<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which had a lower average, household size or family size? | household size | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which had a lower average, household size or family size?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
household size<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many more households, in percentage, were non-families than were made up of individuals? | 7.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many more households, in percentage, were non-families than were made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
7.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which age group made up most households, the households of those under the age of 18 or households with someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older? | under the age of 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which age group made up most households, the households of those under the age of 18 or households with someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
under the age of 18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent do not have children under the age of 18 living with them? | 68.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent do not have children under the age of 18 living with them?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
68.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not Marriage couples living together? | 47.7 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not Marriage couples living together?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
47.7<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not female householder with no husband present? | 90.1 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not female householder with no husband present?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.1<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was least common? | male householder with no wife | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was least common?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
male householder with no wife<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not non-families? | 65.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not non-families?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
65.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not households made up of individuals? | 73 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not households made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
73<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older? | 90.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent larger is the average family size than household size? | .54 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent larger is the average family size than household size?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
.54<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was most common? | Marriage living together | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was most common?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Marriage living together<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was second most common? | non-families | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was second most common?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
non-families<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was third most common? | under the age of 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: which household was third most common?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
under the age of 18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which groups in average are under 4 in size? | household size family size | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which groups in average are under 4 in size?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
household size family size<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households didn't have children under the age of 18 living with them? | 68.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households didn't have children under the age of 18 living with them?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
68.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households weren't a Marriage living together? | 47.7 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households weren't a Marriage living together?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
47.7<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households had a female householder with a husband present? | 90.1 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households had a female householder with a husband present?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.1<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households were families? | 65.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households were families?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
65.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households weren't made up of individuals? | 73 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households weren't made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
73<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households had someone living alone who wasn't 65 years of age or older? | 90.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many in percent of households had someone living alone who wasn't 65 years of age or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: Marriage living together or non-families? | Marriage living together | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: Marriage living together or non-families?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Marriage living together<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is smaller: Marriage living together or non-families? | non-families | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is smaller: Marriage living together or non-families?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
non-families<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: Marriage living together or made up of individuals? | Marriage living together | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: Marriage living together or made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Marriage living together<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is smaller: Marriage living together or made up of individuals? | made up of individuals | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is smaller: Marriage living together or made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
made up of individuals<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: average family size or average household size? | average family size | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: Which group for households is larger: average family size or average household size?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
average family size<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent did not have children under the age of 18 living with them? | 68.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent did not have children under the age of 18 living with them?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
68.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not married living together? | 47.7 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not married living together?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
47.7<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not female householder with no husband present? | 90.1 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not female householder with no husband present?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.1<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not non-families? | 96.6 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not non-families?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
96.6<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not households made up of individuals? | 73 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not households made up of individuals?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
73<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older? | 90.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: There were 23,686 households of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.3% were Marriage living together, 9.9% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.4% had a male householder with no wife present, and 34.5% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.08.
Question: How many percent are not someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
90.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many of the original districts did Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many of the original districts did Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Which came first the Treaty of Quedlinburg or the Main Treaty of Hildesheim? | Treaty of Quedlinburg | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Which came first the Treaty of Quedlinburg or the Main Treaty of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Treaty of Quedlinburg<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years did Prince-bishop John IV live after giving up his prince-bishopric? | 20 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years did Prince-bishop John IV live after giving up his prince-bishopric?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
20<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many treaties are mentioned? | 2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many treaties are mentioned?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many year have passed between John IV giving up the prince-bishopric and his death? | 20 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many year have passed between John IV giving up the prince-bishopric and his death?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
20<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose in the conflict? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose in the conflict?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed first: Treaty of Quedlinburg or Main Treaty of Hildesheim? | Treaty of Quedlinburg | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed first: Treaty of Quedlinburg or Main Treaty of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Treaty of Quedlinburg<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed second: Treaty of Quedlinburg or Main Treaty of Hildesheim? | Main Treaty of Hildesheim | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed second: Treaty of Quedlinburg or Main Treaty of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Main Treaty of Hildesheim<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose after the Treaty of Quedlinburg? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose after the Treaty of Quedlinburg?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many Amters was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded? | 10 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many Amters was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
10<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many abbeys was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded? | 6 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many abbeys was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
6<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many towns was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded? | 4 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many towns was the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel awarded?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
4<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose in the Treaty of Quedlinburg? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose in the Treaty of Quedlinburg?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many original districts was Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim left without? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many original districts was Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim left without?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Who gained more from the Treaty of Quedlinburg, the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel or the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim? | the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Who gained more from the Treaty of Quedlinburg, the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel or the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Who were they parties affected by the Treaty of Quedlinburg? | princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: Who were they parties affected by the Treaty of Quedlinburg?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose? | 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim lose?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim keep? | Hildesheim Peine Kleines Stift | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What districts did the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim keep?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Hildesheim Peine Kleines Stift<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and the Principality of Calenberg each recieve? | 20 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many districts did the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and the Principality of Calenberg each recieve?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
20<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after it's signing was the Treaty of Quedlinburg modified by the Main Treaty of Hildesheim? | 120 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after it's signing was the Treaty of Quedlinburg modified by the Main Treaty of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
120<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after giving up the prince-bishopric did John IV die? | 20 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after giving up the prince-bishopric did John IV die?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
20<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed first, the Treaty of Quedlinburg or the Main Treaty of Hildesheim? | Treaty of Quedlinburg | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What treaty was signed first, the Treaty of Quedlinburg or the Main Treaty of Hildesheim?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Treaty of Quedlinburg<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after the Treaty of Quedlinburg was established was it revised? | 120 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after the Treaty of Quedlinburg was established was it revised?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
120<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric did he die? | 20 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: How many years after Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric did he die?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
20<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What territories remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel after the revision of the Treaty of Quendlinburg? | Ämter of Aerzen Grohnde Coldingen-Lauenberg Lutter am Barenberge Westerhof and Lindau | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: After long negotiations the territorial changes resulting from the conflict were firmly established at the Treaty of Quedlinburg of 13 May 1523. The main import of these changes were significant gains for the princes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, whilst the Prince-Bishopric of Hildesheim was left with just 4 of its original 22 districts as well as the towns of Hildesheim and Peine, the so-called Kleines Stift of some 90 villages. The ecclesiastical boundary of the diocese remained unchanged. The Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was awarded the Ämter of Winzenburg, Wohldenberg, Steinbrück, Lutter, Wohlenstein, Schladen, Liebenburg, Wiedelah, Vienenburg and Westerhof with the abbeys of Lamspringe, Heiningen, Dorstadt, Wöltingerode, Ringelheim and Riechenberg, as well as the towns of Alfeld, Bockenem, Lamspringe and Salzgitter. The Principality of Calenberg received the houses, i.e.fortified seats, and Ämter of Hunnesrück with Markoldendorf, Aerzen, Lauenstein, Grohnde, Hallerburg, Poppenburg, Ruthe and Coldingen, the towns of Dassel, Bodenwerder, Gronau, Elze, Sarstedt, half of Hameln and the abbeys of Marienau, Escherde, Wittenburg, Wülfinghausen and Derneburg. Hildesheim immediately began a legal fight for the return of its Großes Stift . This finally ended in 1643 in the Main Treaty of Hildesheim with a revision of the Treaty of Quedlinburg and return of most of the territories. Exceptions were the Ämter of Aerzen, Grohnde, Coldingen-Lauenberg, Lutter am Barenberge, Westerhof and Lindau, which remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Prince-bishop John IV gave up the prince-bishopric in 1527 and later became canon of Ratzeburg and died in 1547 in Lübeck.
Question: What territories remained with the principalities of Calenberg and Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel after the revision of the Treaty of Quendlinburg?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Ämter of Aerzen Grohnde Coldingen-Lauenberg Lutter am Barenberge Westerhof and Lindau<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many points did the Jets score? | 0 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many points did the Jets score?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
0<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: Who scored their first career touchdown in the game? | Branden Oliver | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: Who scored their first career touchdown in the game?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Branden Oliver<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many reception yards did Oliver have? | 68 yards | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many reception yards did Oliver have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
68 yards<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many yards did both Jets quarterbacks throw for? | 27 yards | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many yards did both Jets quarterbacks throw for?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
27 yards<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many rushing yards did San Diego have? | 162 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many rushing yards did San Diego have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
162<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many rushing carries did Branden Oliver have? | 19 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many rushing carries did Branden Oliver have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
19<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many passing attempts did Rivers have? | 28 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many passing attempts did Rivers have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
28<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many incomplete passes did Rivers have? | 8 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many incomplete passes did Rivers have?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
8<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many more completions did Rivers have than Geno Smith? | 16 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many more completions did Rivers have than Geno Smith?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
16<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: Which QB threw more touchdown passes? | Philip Rivers | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: Which QB threw more touchdown passes?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
Philip Rivers<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many passes did Geno Smith and Michael Vick combine for? | 12 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: Mike McCoy's desire to improve the run game came to fruition against the New York Jets. The Chargers ran for 162 yards against the Jets, who came into the game ranked number one in the NFL in rush defense. Donald Brown was knocked out of the game with a concussion in the first half and Branden Oliver, their fourth-string running back, played. Oliver ran 19 times for 114 yards and a touchdown. He also caught 4 passes for 68 yards and a touchdown. These were the first two NFL touchdowns for the rookie. Philip Rivers completed 20 throws on 28 attempts for 288 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. Two of his touchdown throws were to Antonio Gates. With 65 touchdowns, Rivers and Gates set the NFL record for most between a quarterback and tight end duo. It was Gates' 91 and 92 career TD catches, moving him into 10th place all-time. After the game, Rivers stressed this year's toughness of the team as its success. The offense of the Jets on the other hand, crossed the 50-yard line for the first time with 7:35 left in the fourth quarter. Geno Smith threw only four completions on 12 attempts for 27 yards and an interception. In the first offensive possession for the Jets in the second half, he was benched for Michael Vick. Vick did only a little better by throwing 8 completions on 19 attempts for 27 yards and ran twice for 14 yards. The Chargers were the first team to win by a shutout in the 2014 season (week five). The Chargers' last shutout victory was 31-0 against Kansas City on December 12, 2010. The Jets were shut out for the first time since losing 34-0 against San Francisco on September 30, 2012. With the day's loss, the Jets had lost four straight games.
Question: How many passes did Geno Smith and Michael Vick combine for?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
12<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females were over the age of 18 were there compare to males for every 100 females? | 9.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females were over the age of 18 were there compare to males for every 100 females?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
9.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percentages of the population is 18 or older? | 76.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percentages of the population is 18 or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
76.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females aged 18 and over are there for every 90.5 males? | 9.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females aged 18 and over are there for every 90.5 males?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
9.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more percentages of the population is from 25 to 44 compared to 45 to 64? | 2.6 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more percentages of the population is from 25 to 44 compared to 45 to 64?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
2.6<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't under 18 for the county? | 76.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't under 18 for the county?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
76.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 18 to 24 for the county? | 92.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 18 to 24 for the county?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
92.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 25 to 44 for the county? | 71.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 25 to 44 for the county?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
71.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 45 to 64 for the county? | 74.1 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many in percent wasn't 45 to 64 for the county?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
74.1<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females were their than males for every 100 of each type that were 18 and over for the county? | 9.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females were their than males for every 100 of each type that were 18 and over for the county?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
9.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more males or females? | females | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more males or females?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
females<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How old was the majority of the population? | 25 to 44 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How old was the majority of the population?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
25 to 44<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more residents under the age of 18 or over the age of 65? | under the age of 18 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more residents under the age of 18 or over the age of 65?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
under the age of 18<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the least represented in the population? | 18 to 24 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the least represented in the population?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18 to 24<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females over the age of 18 per 100 compared to males? | 6.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females over the age of 18 per 100 compared to males?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
6.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Was there a higher population in the county of people from the age of 25 to 44 or from 45 to 64? | 25 to 44 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Was there a higher population in the county of people from the age of 25 to 44 or from 45 to 64?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
25 to 44<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more people lived in the country that were age 45 to 64 compared to 65 years of age or older by percent? | 11.7 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more people lived in the country that were age 45 to 64 compared to 65 years of age or older by percent?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
11.7<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the most prevalent? | 25 to 44 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the most prevalent?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
25 to 44<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the least represented? | 18 to 24 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Which age group was the least represented?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
18 to 24<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more of the population aged 65 and older or between age 45 to 64? | from 45 to 64 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: Were there more of the population aged 65 and older or between age 45 to 64?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
from 45 to 64<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not under the age of 18? | 76.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not under the age of 18?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
76.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 18 to 24? | 92.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 18 to 24?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
92.2<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 25 to 44? | 71.5 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 25 to 44?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
71.5<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 45 to 64? | 74.1 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not from 45 to 64?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
74.1<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not 65 years of age or older? | 85.8 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many percent were not 65 years of age or older?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
85.8<end_of_turn>
|
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females per 100 were there than males? | 6.2 | <bos><start_of_turn>user
Answer the question based on the paragraph below
Paragraph: In the county, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 28.5% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females, there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
Question: How many more females per 100 were there than males?<end_of_turn>
<start_of_turn>model
6.2<end_of_turn>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.