Context and question: In a course at the LSA summer institute in 1991, Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky developed optimality theoryan overall architecture for phonology according to which languages choose a pronunciation of a word that best satisfies a list of constraints ordered by importance; a lower-ranked constraint can be violated when the violation is necessary in order to obey a higher-ranked constraint. The approach was soon extended to morphology by John McCarthy and Alan Prince, and has become a dominant trend in phonology. The appeal to phonetic grounding of constraints and representational elements (e.g. features) in various approaches has been criticized by proponents of 'substance-free phonology', especially Mark Hale and Charles Reiss.
When did Prince and Smolensky develop their theory?
Answer: 1991
Context and question: Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of having policies and culture that help to conceal cases of sexual abuse within the organization. The religion has been criticized for its "two witness rule" for church discipline, based on its application of scriptures at Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, which requires sexual abuse to be substantiated by secondary evidence if the accused person denies any wrongdoing. In cases where corroboration is lacking, the Watch Tower Society's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands". A former member of the church's headquarters staff, Barbara Anderson, says the policy effectively requires that there be another witness to an act of molestation, "which is an impossibility". Anderson says the policies "protect pedophiles rather than protect the children." Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that they have a strong policy to protect children, adding that the best way to protect children is by educating parents; they also state that they do not sponsor activities that separate children from parents.
What religion is one of the best at protecting children from molestation?
Answer: unanswerable
Context and question: The Germans expected to negotiate an end to the war but immediately ordered an advance on Paris; by 15 September Moltke issued the orders for an investment of Paris and on 20 September the encirclement was complete. Bismarck met Favre on 18 September at the Chateau de Ferrieres and demanded a frontier immune to a French war of revenge, which included Strasbourg, Alsace and most the Moselle department in Lorraine of which Metz was the capital. In return for an armistice for the French to elect a National Assembly, Bismarck demanded the surrender of Strasbourg and the fortress city of Toul. To allow supplies into Paris, one of the perimeter forts had to be handed over. Favre was unaware that the real aim of Bismarck in making such extortionate demands was to establish a durable peace on the new western frontier of Germany, preferably by a peace with a friendly government, on terms acceptable to French public opinion. An impregnable military frontier was an inferior alternative to him, favoured only by the militant nationalists on the German side.
What did the Germans expect to negotiate?
Answer:
an end to the war