input: Make use of the article to answer the questions. Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience. This view is commonly contrasted with rationalism, which states that knowledge may be derived from reason independently of the senses. For example, John Locke held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone. Similarly Robert Boyle, a prominent advocate of the experimental method, held that we have innate ideas. The main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method".

Aristotle's explanation of how this was possible was not strictly empiricist in a modern sense, but rather based on his theory of potentiality and actuality, and experience of sense perceptions still requires the help of the active nous. These notions contrasted with Platonic notions of the human mind as an entity that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body on Earth (see Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). Aristotle was considered to give a more important position to sense perception than Plato, and commentators in the Middle Ages summarized one of his positions as "nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu" (Latin for "nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses"). 1. Where does their knowledge come from?
2. What is this generally contrasted with?
3. what is that?
4. what is Aristotle's explanation?
5. based on what?
6. was Plato's position more important?
7. how did commentators summarize this?
8. what is that in Latin?
9. what wasn't emipiricist?
10. who had knowledge of God's existence?
numbered_answers: 1. one's sense-based experience
2. rationalism
3. knowledge may be derived from reason independent of senses
4. experience of sense perceptions still requires the help of the active nous
5. his theory of potentiality and actuality
6. no
7. nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses
8. nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu
9. Aristotle's explanation
10. unknown

input: Jimmy swam around the pond. He was a duck. He was wet, but he was a duck and didn't care. He ate some bugs. He saw some worms on the bottom, but wasn't interested in them, or in the bread crumbs, or the hot dog the boy had dropped. He kept on swimming and swimming. He was a mess. After he had eaten his food, it was afternoon. The sun was setting, and Jimmy wanted to rest in the sun, and sleep. He found a nice place to sit, and began to rest. Falling asleep quickly, he slept for a few hours. When he woke up it was dark outside. He had missed dinnertime, but there were always those worms at the bottom of the pond. Jimmy ate quickly, and was soon ready to swim more. The pond was small, not a lake, or a river or a stream. He swam around for a little longer, and soon it was ready for bed in the nest, where he slept with his family Billy, Susie, and Doug. The other animals were sleeping as well, the dog and the cat on the porch. The cow was sleeping in the barn. And last the kittens in their box. Jimmy was ready for bed, it had been a long day, and the next day was going to be the same. But Jimmy did not care. He loved being a duck. Jimmy was one happy duck. 1. Was Jimmy happy?
2. Where did Jimmy swim?
3. What was Jimmy?
4. What did he eat?
5. Did he eat any worms?
6. When was it after he'd eaten his food?
7. What did he want to do in the sun?
8. For how long?
9. Was it morning when he woke?
10. Did he get home for dinner?
11. What did he eat instead?
12. Was the pond huge?
13. What were the names of his family?
14. Who slept on the porch?
15. Did the cow sleep on the porch too?
16. Where were the kittens?
17. What would the next day be like?
18. What did he love? Return numbered answers in your output.

output: 1. yes
2. the pond
3. a duck
4. some bugs
5. no
6. afternoon
7. rest and sleep
8. a few hours
9. no
10. no
11. worms
12. no
13. Billy, Susie and Doug
14. the dog and cat
15. no
16. in their box
17. the same
18. being a duck

Q: CHAPTER XX

THE MATE TRIES TO TAKE COMMAND

The fight had taken place around a bend of the shore, so that it was not observed by old Jerry and the girls. But when Dick got back to camp Dora at once noticed that something unusual had happened.

"What is wrong, Dick?" she asked.

"Oh, nothing much, Dora. I merely made Dan Baxter promise to keep his distance in the future."

"Did you have a fight?"

"It didn't amount to much. He had to give in pretty quickly."

"Oh, Dick!" She caught his arm.

"I won't have him annoying you, or the others, Dora."

"You are so good!" she whispered.

Supper was ready, and they sat down, leaving Jack Lesher still in the hammock. They had nearly finished when Dan Baxter came shuffling along.

"Do you want some supper?" asked Dick. "If you do, come on."

"I don't want anything more to-night," growled the bully, and sat down beside Jack Lesher.

It was rather an uncomfortable evening. The thoughts of each of the party were busy. At the first opportunity Dick called old Jerry to one side.

"Jerry, we must watch those two fellows closely," he said.

"Right ye are, Dick."

"I am afraid Lesher will be ugly when he wakes up."

"More'n likely, lad--he always was on board ship. The drink gives him an awful temper."

"I am, going to put the liquor where he can't get it."

"He'll make ye give it to him."

"Will he? Just you wait and see," replied Dick firmly.

Answer the following questions:
1. Who will be ugly?
2. When?
3. What is his first name?
4. Who was sitting next to him?
5. Where did the conflict break out?
6. Who did not see it?
7. Was the man with the females young?
8. Who returned?
9. Who questioned him?
10. What did she say?
11. Who lounged in the hammock?
12. What meal were they eating?
A:
1. Lesher
2. when he wakes up
3. Jack
4. the bully
5. around a bend of the shore
6. old Jerry and the girls
7. no
8. Dick
9. Dora
10. What is wrong, Dick?
11. Jack Lesher
12. Supper