Alexander II's death caused a great setback for the reform movement. One of his last ideas was to draft plans for an elected parliament, or Duma, which were completed the day before he died but not yet released to the Russian people. In a matter of 48 hours, Alexander II planned to release his plan for the duma to the Russian people. Had he lived, Russia might have followed a path to constitutional monarchy instead of the long road of oppression that defined his successor's reign. The first action Alexander III took after his father's death was to tear up those plans. A Duma would not come into fruition until 1905, when Alexander II's grandson, Nicholas II, commissioned the Duma following extreme pressure on the monarchy as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1905. The assassination triggered major suppression of civil liberties in Russia, and police brutality burst back in full force after experiencing some restraint under the reign of Alexander II, whose death was witnessed first-hand by his son, Alexander III, and his grandson, Nicholas II, both future emperors who vowed not to have the same fate befall them. Both of them used the Okhrana to arrest protestors and uproot suspected rebel groups, creating further suppression of personal freedom for the Russian people. A series of anti-Jewish pogroms and antisemitic legislation, the May Laws, were yet another result. Finally, the tsar's assassination also inspired anarchists to advocate "'propaganda by deed'--the use of a spectacular act of violence to incite revolution." With construction starting in 1883, the Church of the Savior on Blood was built on the site of Alexander's assassination and dedicated in his memory.

Question: "What was Alexander III's reaction to his father's death?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "He vowed not to have the same fate befall him"

Response: yes

New Legitimacy: Organized crime was soon to have a formidable adversary in its bid to control Las Vegascorporate cash. Though Las Vegas had developed a powerful local economy, few major outside investments were made in the city, due primarily to mob infiltration and its inherent ties to illegal activities. That would change dramatically with the 1966 arrival of billionaire Howard Hughes. A legitimate businessman, Hughes was nonetheless eccentric and dramatic, a style suited to the Las Vegas ethos. True to the myth, the reclusive Hughes immediately cloistered himself in the Desert Inn's penthouse. Several weeks later he was askedthen orderedto vacate the room to make room for high rollers, whereupon he promptly bought the property and fired the management. Thus began Hughes' legendary three-year, $300-million Las Vegas buying spree. When it was over, Hughes owned six casinos, an airport, and an airline, along with numerous plots of land stretching from the Strip to the mountains. Hughes' actions would have beneficial repercussions, both immediate and lasting. Because of the new legitimacy Las Vegas acquired from Hughes' investments, established companies such as Hilton Hotels bought into the gaming business, and their influence helped draw a line in the desert sand between legitimate operations and mob casinos, where illegal skimming of profits was rampant. That, combined with the formation of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, would signal the beginning of the end for heavy mob influence in the city. Las Vegas with a Vision As corporations moved in and the mob was slowly pushed out, a new Las Vegas emerged. The legitimization of gambling led to its increased legalization across the US. What was once a sure thing became much more competitive. Casino operators had to reassess the nature of their business. The first to really do so was Steve Wynn, a Las Vegas resident and owner of the Golden Nugget. In the mid-1980s, Wynn began plans to reinvigorate Las Vegas with a new resort. He bought several Strip propertiesthe Silver Slipper and Castaways among themand demolished them to make way for a new kind of resortMirage which became an instant success.

Question: "What did Hughes buy in his three year buying spree?"

Response: "Mountain Chalet"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: Victims of domestic violence will have access to quality legal representation through a campaign undertaken by Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout and corporate leaders. "Thousands of times a year, Idahoans are victims of domestic violence. The victims are often women and their children and they frequently have few resources with which to pursue their legal rights," Trout said Tuesday. "This campaign helps fill that gap in legal services for women who need the help at a time when they are in crisis." The Idaho Partners for Justice Project has already secured pledges of more than $35,000 from law firms, attorneys, corporations and individuals. The goal is $100,000. The drive to pay for free legal services will continue for the next two months. The money goes to Idaho Legal Aid Services and the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program. Last year, more than 5,000 petitions were filed in Idaho for protection orders in domestic violence cases. More than 12,000 victims contacted shelters or crisis hotlines. Joining Trout in the announcement was Idaho Bar Association President Fred Hoopes of Idaho Falls and Ida-West Energy Co. Chief Executive Officer Randy Hill, members of the project's executive committee. Also on hand were some women who were victims of such violence, but benefited from free legal services. Last year's campaign generated enough money and resources to help more than 450 victims. The help ranged from representation in protection order hearings to legal assistance in divorce, visitation and child support cases. The donations are tax deductible.

Question: "Who is on the Idaho Project for Justice Committee?"

Answer: "Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout and corporate leaders"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

To say her face fell would do a disservice to Tasha and to literature. (Allow me my self-indulgences as you would those of a dying man -- when I convince my mindsmith to permit the wipe, there will be another Bernardo Flynn, one who knows no more of Tasha Cortez or Vega IV than he reads here.) Her brows drew together, creasing the lovely, caramel-colored skin around her eyes and showing the pattern for an old woman's wrinkles on her forehead. Her lower lip (a trifle too narrow for her face, perhaps her only physical flaw) thrust forward slightly as she started to speak. She caught herself, slid her jaw infinitesimally back into place, and said, "You don't like it?" I laughed. What could I do? I clapped her shoulder to show I was not laughing at her. "Like it? I hate it, despise it, abhor it! It's gaudy, graceless, pretentious -- That house is an affront to taste and intelligence. I should buy it to raze it, but I am not so kind-hearted. I might, however, rent it." I think she only heard the last words of my speech. "You will?" "It amuses me. Show me around, and then I shall decide." "Of course, Senor Flynn." "And stop calling me 'senor'. Not even Los Mundos is so polite. Call me Bernardo."

Question: "What is Bernardo's last name?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Flynn"

Response:
yes