nc33/multispan_quoref huggingface dataset:
A number of factors led to the popularity of Netherlandish illuminators. Primary was the tradition and expertise that developed in the region in the centuries following the monastic reform of the 14th century, building on the growth in number and prominence of monasteries, abbeys and churches from the 12th century that had already produced significant numbers of liturgical texts. There was a strong political aspect; the form had many influential patrons such as Jean, Duke of Berry and Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death. According to Thomas Kren, Philip's "library was an expression of the man as a Christian prince, and an embodiment of the state – his politics and authority, his learning and piety". Because of his patronage the manuscript industry in the Lowlands grew so that it dominated Europe for several generations. The Burgundian book-collecting tradition passed to Philip's son and his wife, Charles the Bold and Margaret of York; his granddaughter Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian I; and to his son-in-law, Edward IV, who was an avid collector of Flemish manuscripts. The libraries left by Philip and Edward IV formed the nucleus from which sprang the Royal Library of Belgium and the English Royal Library.Netherlandish illuminators had an important export market, designing many works specifically for the English market. Following a decline in domestic patronage after Charles the Bold died in 1477, the export market became more important. Illuminators responded to differences in taste by producing more lavish and extravagantly decorated works tailored for foreign elites, including Edward IV of England, James IV of Scotland and Eleanor of Viseu.

Question: What were the full names of the two people whose libraries they left formed the nucleus from which sprang the Royal Library of Belgium?
Answer: Philip the Good,, Edward IV
A number of factors led to the popularity of Netherlandish illuminators. Primary was the tradition and expertise that developed in the region in the centuries following the monastic reform of the 14th century, building on the growth in number and prominence of monasteries, abbeys and churches from the 12th century that had already produced significant numbers of liturgical texts. There was a strong political aspect; the form had many influential patrons such as Jean, Duke of Berry and Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death. According to Thomas Kren, Philip's "library was an expression of the man as a Christian prince, and an embodiment of the state – his politics and authority, his learning and piety". Because of his patronage the manuscript industry in the Lowlands grew so that it dominated Europe for several generations. The Burgundian book-collecting tradition passed to Philip's son and his wife, Charles the Bold and Margaret of York; his granddaughter Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian I; and to his son-in-law, Edward IV, who was an avid collector of Flemish manuscripts. The libraries left by Philip and Edward IV formed the nucleus from which sprang the Royal Library of Belgium and the English Royal Library.Netherlandish illuminators had an important export market, designing many works specifically for the English market. Following a decline in domestic patronage after Charles the Bold died in 1477, the export market became more important. Illuminators responded to differences in taste by producing more lavish and extravagantly decorated works tailored for foreign elites, including Edward IV of England, James IV of Scotland and Eleanor of Viseu.

Question: What is the full name of the son of the man who collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death?
Answer: Charles the Bold
A number of factors led to the popularity of Netherlandish illuminators. Primary was the tradition and expertise that developed in the region in the centuries following the monastic reform of the 14th century, building on the growth in number and prominence of monasteries, abbeys and churches from the 12th century that had already produced significant numbers of liturgical texts. There was a strong political aspect; the form had many influential patrons such as Jean, Duke of Berry and Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death. According to Thomas Kren, Philip's "library was an expression of the man as a Christian prince, and an embodiment of the state – his politics and authority, his learning and piety". Because of his patronage the manuscript industry in the Lowlands grew so that it dominated Europe for several generations. The Burgundian book-collecting tradition passed to Philip's son and his wife, Charles the Bold and Margaret of York; his granddaughter Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian I; and to his son-in-law, Edward IV, who was an avid collector of Flemish manuscripts. The libraries left by Philip and Edward IV formed the nucleus from which sprang the Royal Library of Belgium and the English Royal Library.Netherlandish illuminators had an important export market, designing many works specifically for the English market. Following a decline in domestic patronage after Charles the Bold died in 1477, the export market became more important. Illuminators responded to differences in taste by producing more lavish and extravagantly decorated works tailored for foreign elites, including Edward IV of England, James IV of Scotland and Eleanor of Viseu.

Question: What is the full name of the wife of the man who collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death
Answer: Margaret of York
A number of factors led to the popularity of Netherlandish illuminators. Primary was the tradition and expertise that developed in the region in the centuries following the monastic reform of the 14th century, building on the growth in number and prominence of monasteries, abbeys and churches from the 12th century that had already produced significant numbers of liturgical texts. There was a strong political aspect; the form had many influential patrons such as Jean, Duke of Berry and Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death. According to Thomas Kren, Philip's "library was an expression of the man as a Christian prince, and an embodiment of the state – his politics and authority, his learning and piety". Because of his patronage the manuscript industry in the Lowlands grew so that it dominated Europe for several generations. The Burgundian book-collecting tradition passed to Philip's son and his wife, Charles the Bold and Margaret of York; his granddaughter Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian I; and to his son-in-law, Edward IV, who was an avid collector of Flemish manuscripts. The libraries left by Philip and Edward IV formed the nucleus from which sprang the Royal Library of Belgium and the English Royal Library.Netherlandish illuminators had an important export market, designing many works specifically for the English market. Following a decline in domestic patronage after Charles the Bold died in 1477, the export market became more important. Illuminators responded to differences in taste by producing more lavish and extravagantly decorated works tailored for foreign elites, including Edward IV of England, James IV of Scotland and Eleanor of Viseu.

Question: Q: What is the full name of the grandfather of the woman married to Maximilian I?
Answer: Philip the Good
There was considerable overlap between panel painting and illumination; van Eyck, van der Weyden, Christus and other painters designed manuscript miniatures. In addition, miniaturists would borrow motifs and ideas from panel paintings; Campin's work was often used as a source in this way, for example in the "Hours of Raoul d'Ailly". Commissions were often shared between several masters, with junior painters or specialists assisting, especially with details such as the border decorations, these last often done by women. The masters rarely signed their work, making attribution difficult; the identities of some of the more significant illuminators are lost.Netherlandish artists found increasingly inventive ways to highlight and differentiate their work from manuscripts from surrounding countries; such techniques included designing elaborate page borders and devising ways to relate scale and space. They explored the interplay between the three essential components of a manuscript: border, miniature and text. An example is the Nassau book of hours (c. 1467–80) by the Vienna Master of Mary of Burgundy, in which the borders are decorated with large illusionistic flowers and insects. These elements achieved their effect by being broadly painted, as if scattered across the gilded surface of the miniatures. This technique was continued by, among others, the Flemish Master of James IV of Scotland (possibly Gerard Horenbout), known for his innovative page layout. Using various illusionistic elements, he often blurred the line between the miniature and its border, frequently using both in his efforts to advance the narrative of his scenes.During the early 19th century, the collection of 15th- and 16th-century Netherlandish cut-out, as miniatures or parts for albums, became fashionable amongst connoisseurs such as William Young Ottley, leading to the destruction of many manuscripts. Originals were highly sought after, a revival that helped the rediscovery of Netherlandish art in the later part of the century.

Question: What is the name of the man that used an innovative page layout that often blurred the line between the miniature and its border?
Answer: James IV
The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Question: What is the full name of the person who effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study?
Answer: Erwin Panofsky
The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Question: What is the full name of the person who built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography?
Answer: Erwin Panofsky
The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Question: What are the full names of the two individuals who were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience?
Answer: Otto Pächt, Friedrich Winkler
The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Question: What is the first name of the the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap?
Answer: Erwin
The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Question: What is the last name of the person who considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels?
Answer: Panofsky
More recent research from art historians such as Lorne Campbell relies on X-ray and infrared photography to develop an understanding of the techniques and materials used by the painters. The conservation of the Ghent Altarpiece in the mid-1950s pioneered methodologies and scholarship in technical studies. Examination of paint layers and underlayers was later applied to other Netherlandish works, allowing for more accurate attributions. Van Eyck's work, for example, typically shows underdrawings unlike Christus' work. These discoveries, too, hint at the relationships between the masters of the first rank and those in the following generations, with Memling's underdrawings clearly showing van der Weyden's influence.Scholarship since the 1970s has tended to move away from a pure study of iconography, instead emphasizing the paintings' and artists' relation to the social history of their time. According to Craig Harbison, "Social history was becoming increasingly important. Panofsky had never really talked about what kind of people these were." Harbison sees the works as objects of devotion with a "prayer book mentality" available to middle-class burghers who had the means and the inclination to commission devotional objects. Most recent scholarship is moving away from the focus on religious iconography; instead, it investigates how a viewer is meant to experience a piece, as with donor paintings that were meant to elicit the feeling of a religious vision. James Marrow thinks the painters wanted to evoke specific responses, which are often hinted at by the figures' emotions in the paintings.

Question: What, instead, investigates how a viewer is meant to experience a piece, as with donor paintings that were meant to elicit the feeling of a religious vision?
Answer: recent scholarship
The Doom Bar has accounted for more than 600 beachings, capsizes and wrecks since records began early in the nineteenth century, the majority of which are wrecks.Larger boats entering Padstow were offered assistance, generally by pilots who would wait at Stepper Point when a ship signalled it would be entering. If a boat was foundering, salvors would step in and help. There were cases where salvors attempted to overstate the danger in court, so as to extort more money from the owners. This happened to the brig The Towan, which foundered in October 1843 but was not in significant danger. Although it did not need assistance, salvors interfered and attempted to claim a large amount in compensation from the owner.In 1827, the recently founded Life-boat Institution helped fund a permanent lifeboat at Padstow, a 23 feet (7.0 m) rowing boat with four oars. The lifeboat house at Hawker's Cove was erected two years later by the Padstow Harbour Association for the Preservation of Life and Property from Shipwreck. Reverend Charles Prideaux-Brune of Prideaux Place was the patron. In 1879, four of his granddaughters and their friend were rowing on the Doom Bar and saw a craft go down. They rowed out to save the drowning sailor. As it was very unusual for women to rescue men all five girls received a Royal National Lifeboat Institution Silver Medal for their bravery.Despite the safer eastern channel and improvements in maritime technology, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution still deals with incidents at the Doom Bar. In February 1997, two fishermen who were not wearing lifejackets drowned after their boat capsized. Two anglers had been killed in a similar incident in 1994. On 25 June 2007, the Padstow lifeboat and a rescue helicopter rescued the crews of two yachts in separate incidents from the area.

Question: What was The Towan by when it received help?
Answer: The Doom Bar
The film begins in a modern home with two children, Andrew and Katie, about to go to bed during a thunderstorm. They ask their father to read them a story to help them feel better about the storm. The father finds a dusty, old book and decides to read the story of Hansel and Gretel.
Hansel and Gretel (Jacob Smith and Taylor Momsen) are living with their father and stepmother in a very tiny shack. The children know their stepmother is evil, but the father does not. Since they are very poor, the father decides to sell Hansel and Gretel's biological mother's necklace, but the stepmother substitutes a pebble. The next day, the stepmother forces the children into taking a walk in the scary forest. Once they get far enough into the forest, the stepmother abandons them.
Afterward, Hansel and Gretel go looking for food and are tricked into going to a lazy troll's (Bobcat Goldthwait) house. They get caught, but are then saved by the Sandman, whom they befriend. They also let Wood Fairy free, whom they also befriend. Throughout the story the Sandman and the fairy are always bickering which causes problems at times.

Question: What are the first names of the two people who ask their father to read them a story?
Answer: Andrew, Katie
The film begins in a modern home with two children, Andrew and Katie, about to go to bed during a thunderstorm. They ask their father to read them a story to help them feel better about the storm. The father finds a dusty, old book and decides to read the story of Hansel and Gretel.
Hansel and Gretel (Jacob Smith and Taylor Momsen) are living with their father and stepmother in a very tiny shack. The children know their stepmother is evil, but the father does not. Since they are very poor, the father decides to sell Hansel and Gretel's biological mother's necklace, but the stepmother substitutes a pebble. The next day, the stepmother forces the children into taking a walk in the scary forest. Once they get far enough into the forest, the stepmother abandons them.
Afterward, Hansel and Gretel go looking for food and are tricked into going to a lazy troll's (Bobcat Goldthwait) house. They get caught, but are then saved by the Sandman, whom they befriend. They also let Wood Fairy free, whom they also befriend. Throughout the story the Sandman and the fairy are always bickering which causes problems at times.

Question: What are the first names of the two people who are forced to walk in a scary forest?
Answer: Hansel, Gretel
Professor Cannafraz (a Richard Haydn impression) creates a "super carrot" and uses it on his test subject – Rabbitus idioticus americanus, who immediately wolfs down the proffered carrot. Armed with temporary superhero abilities that need to be replenished with additional super carrots, Bugs remembers a newspaper article about Texas hunter "Cottontail" Smith, who wants to hunt down all rabbits.
Bugs flies to Deepinaharta, Texas, and assumes the moniker of a mild-mannered forest creature, complete with oversized glasses and hat. He encounters Smith, who attempts to shoot Bugs, only for the bullets to form an outline of Bugs before harmlessly falling to the ground. Bugs then hands Smith a cannon, eats another carrot then, upon being struck by the cannonball, plays basketball with it, quickly shoving Smith and his horse onto bleachers while he acts as his own cheerleader. After Bugs returns to the air, the bemused Smith and his horse fly into the sky with their own airplane. Bugs then snatches the shell of the plane away from them, plunging them to the ground.
Bugs runs out of power, but when he tries to recharge again, his carrots fall to the ground. When Bugs lands, he opens his eyes to see a line of chewed-up carrots eaten by Smith and his horse-turned-Superhero. Bugs turns to the camera and says "This looks like a job for a REAL Superman!" He ducks into a phone booth. Both Smith and the horse are ready to attack - until the booth opens and they both snap to attention and salute. Bugs marches out in a Marine uniform, singing the "Marines' Hymn." He dismisses the two, claiming he has "important work to do!", and marches off to "Berlin, Tokyo and points East."

Question: Who disguises himself to stop the hunter?
Answer: Bugs
Professor Cannafraz (a Richard Haydn impression) creates a "super carrot" and uses it on his test subject – Rabbitus idioticus americanus, who immediately wolfs down the proffered carrot. Armed with temporary superhero abilities that need to be replenished with additional super carrots, Bugs remembers a newspaper article about Texas hunter "Cottontail" Smith, who wants to hunt down all rabbits.
Bugs flies to Deepinaharta, Texas, and assumes the moniker of a mild-mannered forest creature, complete with oversized glasses and hat. He encounters Smith, who attempts to shoot Bugs, only for the bullets to form an outline of Bugs before harmlessly falling to the ground. Bugs then hands Smith a cannon, eats another carrot then, upon being struck by the cannonball, plays basketball with it, quickly shoving Smith and his horse onto bleachers while he acts as his own cheerleader. After Bugs returns to the air, the bemused Smith and his horse fly into the sky with their own airplane. Bugs then snatches the shell of the plane away from them, plunging them to the ground.
Bugs runs out of power, but when he tries to recharge again, his carrots fall to the ground. When Bugs lands, he opens his eyes to see a line of chewed-up carrots eaten by Smith and his horse-turned-Superhero. Bugs turns to the camera and says "This looks like a job for a REAL Superman!" He ducks into a phone booth. Both Smith and the horse are ready to attack - until the booth opens and they both snap to attention and salute. Bugs marches out in a Marine uniform, singing the "Marines' Hymn." He dismisses the two, claiming he has "important work to do!", and marches off to "Berlin, Tokyo and points East."

Question: What is the nickname of the man who shoots at Bugs?
Answer: Cottontail
Professor Cannafraz (a Richard Haydn impression) creates a "super carrot" and uses it on his test subject – Rabbitus idioticus americanus, who immediately wolfs down the proffered carrot. Armed with temporary superhero abilities that need to be replenished with additional super carrots, Bugs remembers a newspaper article about Texas hunter "Cottontail" Smith, who wants to hunt down all rabbits.
Bugs flies to Deepinaharta, Texas, and assumes the moniker of a mild-mannered forest creature, complete with oversized glasses and hat. He encounters Smith, who attempts to shoot Bugs, only for the bullets to form an outline of Bugs before harmlessly falling to the ground. Bugs then hands Smith a cannon, eats another carrot then, upon being struck by the cannonball, plays basketball with it, quickly shoving Smith and his horse onto bleachers while he acts as his own cheerleader. After Bugs returns to the air, the bemused Smith and his horse fly into the sky with their own airplane. Bugs then snatches the shell of the plane away from them, plunging them to the ground.
Bugs runs out of power, but when he tries to recharge again, his carrots fall to the ground. When Bugs lands, he opens his eyes to see a line of chewed-up carrots eaten by Smith and his horse-turned-Superhero. Bugs turns to the camera and says "This looks like a job for a REAL Superman!" He ducks into a phone booth. Both Smith and the horse are ready to attack - until the booth opens and they both snap to attention and salute. Bugs marches out in a Marine uniform, singing the "Marines' Hymn." He dismisses the two, claiming he has "important work to do!", and marches off to "Berlin, Tokyo and points East."

Question: What name does Professor Cannafraz' test subject take on after eating the carrot?
Answer: Bugs
Professor Cannafraz (a Richard Haydn impression) creates a "super carrot" and uses it on his test subject – Rabbitus idioticus americanus, who immediately wolfs down the proffered carrot. Armed with temporary superhero abilities that need to be replenished with additional super carrots, Bugs remembers a newspaper article about Texas hunter "Cottontail" Smith, who wants to hunt down all rabbits.
Bugs flies to Deepinaharta, Texas, and assumes the moniker of a mild-mannered forest creature, complete with oversized glasses and hat. He encounters Smith, who attempts to shoot Bugs, only for the bullets to form an outline of Bugs before harmlessly falling to the ground. Bugs then hands Smith a cannon, eats another carrot then, upon being struck by the cannonball, plays basketball with it, quickly shoving Smith and his horse onto bleachers while he acts as his own cheerleader. After Bugs returns to the air, the bemused Smith and his horse fly into the sky with their own airplane. Bugs then snatches the shell of the plane away from them, plunging them to the ground.
Bugs runs out of power, but when he tries to recharge again, his carrots fall to the ground. When Bugs lands, he opens his eyes to see a line of chewed-up carrots eaten by Smith and his horse-turned-Superhero. Bugs turns to the camera and says "This looks like a job for a REAL Superman!" He ducks into a phone booth. Both Smith and the horse are ready to attack - until the booth opens and they both snap to attention and salute. Bugs marches out in a Marine uniform, singing the "Marines' Hymn." He dismisses the two, claiming he has "important work to do!", and marches off to "Berlin, Tokyo and points East."

Question: What does the professor's test subject pretend to be to escape the hunter?
Answer: a Marine
On 7 May 1896, Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford put the 1,183-acre (4,790,000 m2) estate up for auction, but it failed to reach its reported reserve price of £300,000 (£34.1 million as of 2019). There was much public debate, before and after the abortive sale, as to whether Manchester Corporation ought to buy Trafford Park, but the corporation could not agree terms quickly enough, and so on 23 June Ernest Terah Hooley became the new owner of Trafford Park, for the sum of £360,000 (£40.9 million as of 2019).On 17 August, Hooley formed Trafford Park Estates Ltd, transferring his ownership of the park to the new company – of which he was the chairman and a significant shareholder – at a substantial profit. The initial plans for the estate included a racetrack, exclusive housing and a cycle works, along with the development of the ship canal frontage for "all types of trade including timber". By that time the ship canal had been open for two years, but the predicted traffic had yet to materialise. Hooley met with Marshall Stevens, the general manager of the Ship Canal Company, and both men recognised the benefit that the industrial development of Trafford Park could offer to the ship canal, and the ship canal to the estate. In January 1897 Stevens became the managing director of Trafford Park Estates. He remained with the company, latterly as its joint chairman and managing director, until 1930.
The company initially chose not to construct buildings for letting, and instead leased land for development. But by the end of June 1897 less than one per cent of the park had been leased, and so the park's existing assets were put to use until more tenants could be found. Trafford Hall was opened as a hotel in 1899, to serve prospective industrialists considering a move to the park, along with their key employees. It had 40 bedrooms, available to "Gentlemen only". The hall's stables and some other outbuildings were used for stock auctions and the sale of horses, from 1900 to 1902, and the ornamental lake was leased to William Crooke and Sons, for use as a boating lake, initially on a five-year lease. A polo ground was set up in the park in 1902, and 80 acres (320,000 m2) of land near the hall were leased to the Manchester Golf Club, who laid out a three-mile (4.8 km) long course. The club moved from Trafford Park to a new site at Hopwood Park in 1912. All of the open-field land uses were subsequently pushed out by industry.

Question: What failed to reach its reserve price at auction?
Answer: Trafford Park
On 7 May 1896, Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford put the 1,183-acre (4,790,000 m2) estate up for auction, but it failed to reach its reported reserve price of £300,000 (£34.1 million as of 2019). There was much public debate, before and after the abortive sale, as to whether Manchester Corporation ought to buy Trafford Park, but the corporation could not agree terms quickly enough, and so on 23 June Ernest Terah Hooley became the new owner of Trafford Park, for the sum of £360,000 (£40.9 million as of 2019).On 17 August, Hooley formed Trafford Park Estates Ltd, transferring his ownership of the park to the new company – of which he was the chairman and a significant shareholder – at a substantial profit. The initial plans for the estate included a racetrack, exclusive housing and a cycle works, along with the development of the ship canal frontage for "all types of trade including timber". By that time the ship canal had been open for two years, but the predicted traffic had yet to materialise. Hooley met with Marshall Stevens, the general manager of the Ship Canal Company, and both men recognised the benefit that the industrial development of Trafford Park could offer to the ship canal, and the ship canal to the estate. In January 1897 Stevens became the managing director of Trafford Park Estates. He remained with the company, latterly as its joint chairman and managing director, until 1930.
The company initially chose not to construct buildings for letting, and instead leased land for development. But by the end of June 1897 less than one per cent of the park had been leased, and so the park's existing assets were put to use until more tenants could be found. Trafford Hall was opened as a hotel in 1899, to serve prospective industrialists considering a move to the park, along with their key employees. It had 40 bedrooms, available to "Gentlemen only". The hall's stables and some other outbuildings were used for stock auctions and the sale of horses, from 1900 to 1902, and the ornamental lake was leased to William Crooke and Sons, for use as a boating lake, initially on a five-year lease. A polo ground was set up in the park in 1902, and 80 acres (320,000 m2) of land near the hall were leased to the Manchester Golf Club, who laid out a three-mile (4.8 km) long course. The club moved from Trafford Park to a new site at Hopwood Park in 1912. All of the open-field land uses were subsequently pushed out by industry.

Question: What are the full names of the people who recognized the benefit of the industrial development of Trafford Park?
Answer: Ernest Terah Hooley, Marshall Stevens
On 7 May 1896, Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford put the 1,183-acre (4,790,000 m2) estate up for auction, but it failed to reach its reported reserve price of £300,000 (£34.1 million as of 2019). There was much public debate, before and after the abortive sale, as to whether Manchester Corporation ought to buy Trafford Park, but the corporation could not agree terms quickly enough, and so on 23 June Ernest Terah Hooley became the new owner of Trafford Park, for the sum of £360,000 (£40.9 million as of 2019).On 17 August, Hooley formed Trafford Park Estates Ltd, transferring his ownership of the park to the new company – of which he was the chairman and a significant shareholder – at a substantial profit. The initial plans for the estate included a racetrack, exclusive housing and a cycle works, along with the development of the ship canal frontage for "all types of trade including timber". By that time the ship canal had been open for two years, but the predicted traffic had yet to materialise. Hooley met with Marshall Stevens, the general manager of the Ship Canal Company, and both men recognised the benefit that the industrial development of Trafford Park could offer to the ship canal, and the ship canal to the estate. In January 1897 Stevens became the managing director of Trafford Park Estates. He remained with the company, latterly as its joint chairman and managing director, until 1930.
The company initially chose not to construct buildings for letting, and instead leased land for development. But by the end of June 1897 less than one per cent of the park had been leased, and so the park's existing assets were put to use until more tenants could be found. Trafford Hall was opened as a hotel in 1899, to serve prospective industrialists considering a move to the park, along with their key employees. It had 40 bedrooms, available to "Gentlemen only". The hall's stables and some other outbuildings were used for stock auctions and the sale of horses, from 1900 to 1902, and the ornamental lake was leased to William Crooke and Sons, for use as a boating lake, initially on a five-year lease. A polo ground was set up in the park in 1902, and 80 acres (320,000 m2) of land near the hall were leased to the Manchester Golf Club, who laid out a three-mile (4.8 km) long course. The club moved from Trafford Park to a new site at Hopwood Park in 1912. All of the open-field land uses were subsequently pushed out by industry.

Question: What is the full name of the person who remained with Trafford Park Estates until 1930?
Answer: Marshall Stevens
On 7 May 1896, Sir Humphrey Francis de Trafford put the 1,183-acre (4,790,000 m2) estate up for auction, but it failed to reach its reported reserve price of £300,000 (£34.1 million as of 2019). There was much public debate, before and after the abortive sale, as to whether Manchester Corporation ought to buy Trafford Park, but the corporation could not agree terms quickly enough, and so on 23 June Ernest Terah Hooley became the new owner of Trafford Park, for the sum of £360,000 (£40.9 million as of 2019).On 17 August, Hooley formed Trafford Park Estates Ltd, transferring his ownership of the park to the new company – of which he was the chairman and a significant shareholder – at a substantial profit. The initial plans for the estate included a racetrack, exclusive housing and a cycle works, along with the development of the ship canal frontage for "all types of trade including timber". By that time the ship canal had been open for two years, but the predicted traffic had yet to materialise. Hooley met with Marshall Stevens, the general manager of the Ship Canal Company, and both men recognised the benefit that the industrial development of Trafford Park could offer to the ship canal, and the ship canal to the estate. In January 1897 Stevens became the managing director of Trafford Park Estates. He remained with the company, latterly as its joint chairman and managing director, until 1930.
The company initially chose not to construct buildings for letting, and instead leased land for development. But by the end of June 1897 less than one per cent of the park had been leased, and so the park's existing assets were put to use until more tenants could be found. Trafford Hall was opened as a hotel in 1899, to serve prospective industrialists considering a move to the park, along with their key employees. It had 40 bedrooms, available to "Gentlemen only". The hall's stables and some other outbuildings were used for stock auctions and the sale of horses, from 1900 to 1902, and the ornamental lake was leased to William Crooke and Sons, for use as a boating lake, initially on a five-year lease. A polo ground was set up in the park in 1902, and 80 acres (320,000 m2) of land near the hall were leased to the Manchester Golf Club, who laid out a three-mile (4.8 km) long course. The club moved from Trafford Park to a new site at Hopwood Park in 1912. All of the open-field land uses were subsequently pushed out by industry.

Question: What had 40 bedrooms?
Answer: Trafford Hall
The second major American company to set up a manufacturing base in Trafford Park was the Ford Motor Company, in 1911. Initially Ford used its factory as an assembly plant for the Model T, although other vehicles were assembled there in later years, before moving to a new factory at Dagenham, Essex, in 1931. By 1915, 100 American companies had moved into the park, peaking at more than 200 by 1933. When the cotton industry began to decline in the early 20th century, Trafford Park and the Manchester Ship Canal helped Manchester – and to a lesser extent the rest of south Lancashire – to weather the economic depression from which the rest of Lancashire suffered. During the First World War the park was used for the manufacture of munitions, chemicals and other materiel. Most firms at Trafford Park succeeded in avoiding bankruptcy during the Great Depression, unlike the rest of Lancashire. Ford moved to Dagenham in 1931, but returned temporarily to Trafford Park during the Second World War.Metropolitan Vickers set up Manchester's and one of the UK's first radio stations at their factory in 1921. The station's first broadcast took place on 17 May 1922. In October that year the company was one of six who formed the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), which started broadcasting from the Metrovicks studio under the call sign 2ZY on 15 November 1922. Much of the station's content was musical, but news, plays, and children's programmes were also transmitted. Conditions in the small 30-by-16-foot (9.1 m × 4.9 m) studio were cramped, and the BBC moved the station to larger premises outside the park in 1923.

Question: Where had 100 American companies moved to by 1915?
Answer: Trafford Park
The second major American company to set up a manufacturing base in Trafford Park was the Ford Motor Company, in 1911. Initially Ford used its factory as an assembly plant for the Model T, although other vehicles were assembled there in later years, before moving to a new factory at Dagenham, Essex, in 1931. By 1915, 100 American companies had moved into the park, peaking at more than 200 by 1933. When the cotton industry began to decline in the early 20th century, Trafford Park and the Manchester Ship Canal helped Manchester – and to a lesser extent the rest of south Lancashire – to weather the economic depression from which the rest of Lancashire suffered. During the First World War the park was used for the manufacture of munitions, chemicals and other materiel. Most firms at Trafford Park succeeded in avoiding bankruptcy during the Great Depression, unlike the rest of Lancashire. Ford moved to Dagenham in 1931, but returned temporarily to Trafford Park during the Second World War.Metropolitan Vickers set up Manchester's and one of the UK's first radio stations at their factory in 1921. The station's first broadcast took place on 17 May 1922. In October that year the company was one of six who formed the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), which started broadcasting from the Metrovicks studio under the call sign 2ZY on 15 November 1922. Much of the station's content was musical, but news, plays, and children's programmes were also transmitted. Conditions in the small 30-by-16-foot (9.1 m × 4.9 m) studio were cramped, and the BBC moved the station to larger premises outside the park in 1923.

Question: Where was the place that was used to manufacture munitions, chemicals, and other materials during the First World War?
Answer: Trafford Park