romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
In his 2003 paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", A. W. F. Edwards argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data. Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups. Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and complex traits remains poorly understood. However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."

Q1: What type of classification system for humans did A.W.F. Edwards argue for?
A1: characteristic genetic patterns
Q2: What might genetic clusters be shown to correspond to one day?
A2: phenotypic variations between groups
Q3: How is the relationship between genes and complex traits understood?
A3: poorly
Q4: Risch feels any category someone comes up with will be what?
A4: imperfect
Q5: Risch thinks imperfect categories still have what?
A5: utility
Early human genetic cluster analysis studies were conducted with samples taken from ancestral population groups living at extreme geographic distances from each other. It was thought that such large geographic distances would maximize the genetic variation between the groups sampled in the analysis and thus maximize the probability of finding cluster patterns unique to each group. In light of the historically recent acceleration of human migration (and correspondingly, human gene flow) on a global scale, further studies were conducted to judge the degree to which genetic cluster analysis can pattern ancestrally identified groups as well as geographically separated groups. One such study looked at a large multiethnic population in the United States, and "detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population." (Tang et al. (2005))

Q1: What groups were early samples from for genetic cluster analysis?
A1: ancestral population
Q2: Where did the groups the genetic clusters were taken from live from each other?
A2: extreme geographic distances
Q3: What was thought might maximize the odds of finding unique cluster patterns in groups?
A3: large geographic distances
Q4: What human activity has only recently accelerated?
A4: migration
Q5: Human migration tends to accelerate this type of what flow?
A5: gene
Witherspoon et al. (2007) have argued that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used in order for the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" to be "never". This assumed three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian). The entire world population is much more complex and studying an increasing number of groups would require an increasing number of markers for the same answer. The authors conclude that "caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes." Witherspoon, et al. concluded that, "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our ﬁnding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."

Q1: Randomly chosen people from different groups may be more similar to each other than with members of their own what?
A1: cluster
Q2: How many genetic markers need to be used to show people from different groups are dissimilar to each other?
A2: thousands
Q3: Studying increasing number of groups require an increasing number of what?
A3: markers
Q4: What should be used when using ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes?
A4: caution
Q5: People are more frequently similar to members of what populations?
A5: other populations
Anthropologists such as C. Loring Brace, the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther, and the geneticist Joseph Graves,[page needed] have argued that while there it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as "continental races", this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is therefore dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clustering would be different. Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being clinally composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials. Kaplan and Winther therefore argue that, seen in this way, both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. They conclude that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. Moreover, the genomic data underdetermines whether one wishes to see subdivisions (i.e., splitters) or a continuum (i.e., lumpers). Under Kaplan and Winther's view, racial groupings are objective social constructions (see Mills 1998 ) that have conventional biological reality only insofar as the categories are chosen and constructed for pragmatic scientific reasons. In earlier work, Winther had identified "diversity partitioning" and "clustering analysis" as two separate methodologies, with distinct questions, assumptions, and protocols. Each is also associated with opposing ontological consequences vis-a-vis the metaphysics of race.

Q1: Cluster structure of genetic data is dependent on what initial thing?
A1: hypotheses
Q2: If one samples a continental group, what do the clusters become?
A2: continental
Q3: What is not a natural taxonomy of the human species?
A3: racial classification
Q4: What are objective social constructions?
A4: racial groupings
Q5: What are diversity partition and clustering analysis are examples of?
A5: methodologies
Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with "race", following the Second World War, evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to believe that race itself is a social construct, a concept that was believed to correspond to an objective reality but which was believed in because of its social functions.

Q1: What word do many social scientists instead of race?
A1: ethnicity
Q2: What had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery and genocide in WWII?
A2: beliefs about race
Q3: When did the civil rights movement take place?
A3: the 1960s
Q4: What movement gained momentum worldwide in the 60's?
A4: anti-colonial
Q5: What type of reality do some believe race is a social construct corresponding to?
A5: objective
Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

Q1: What organization is Craig Venter and Francis Collins associated with?
A1: the National Institute of Health
Q2: What year was the announcement that the human genome had been mapped made in?
A2: 2000
Q3: What doesn't the genetic variation within the human species support?
A3: notion of genetically defined races
Q4: What is a social concept, not a scientific one?
A4: Race
Q5: What happens when scientists try to apply science to sort out social differences?
A5: it all falls apart
The theory that race is merely a social construct has been challenged by the findings of researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics as "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies". One of the researchers, Neil Risch, noted: "we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism."

Q1: Researchers from which university challenged the theory of race being only a social construct?
A1: Stanford
Q2: Where was the challenge to the theory of racing being a social construct published?
A2: the American Journal of Human Genetics
Q3: Neil Risch found a 99.9% agree between genetic structure and people's description of their what?
A3: self
Q4: What is a problematic category in addition to race?
A4: sex
Q5: What may self-identification not correlate with precisely?
A5: biology
Basically, race in Brazil was "biologized", but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines genotype) and phenotypic differences. There, racial identity was not governed by rigid descent rule, such as the one-drop rule, as it was in the United States. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a very limited number of categories to choose from, to the extent that full siblings can pertain to different racial groups.

Q1: What country was race "Biologized" in?
A1: Brazil
Q2: What wasn't racial identity governed by in Brazil?
A2: rigid descent rule
Q3: What were Brazillian children never automatically identified with the type of?
A3: racial
Q4: What may full siblings belong to?
A4: different racial groups
Q5: What determines genotype?
A5: ancestry
Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and not one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred preferentially to appearance, not heredity, and appearance is a poor indication of ancestry, because only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin color and traits: a person who is considered white may have more African ancestry than a person who is considered black, and the reverse can be also true about European ancestry. The complexity of racial classifications in Brazil reflects the extent of miscegenation in Brazilian society, a society that remains highly, but not strictly, stratified along color lines. These socioeconomic factors are also significant to the limits of racial lines, because a minority of pardos, or brown people, are likely to start declaring themselves white or black if socially upward, and being seen as relatively "whiter" as their perceived social status increases (much as in other regions of Latin America).

Q1: How many racial categories would be needed with all the possible combinations of outward features?
A1: Over a dozen
Q2: What way would categories grade into each other, rather than being isolated from each other?
A2: like the colors of the spectrum
Q3: What did race refer to instead of heredity?
A3: appearance
Q4: What is appearance a poor indication of?
A4: ancestry
Q5: Where is there a lot of complexity in racial classifications?
A5: Brazil
Fluidity of racial categories aside, the "biologification" of race in Brazil referred above would match contemporary concepts of race in the United States quite closely, though, if Brazilians are supposed to choose their race as one among, Asian and Indigenous apart, three IBGE's census categories. While assimilated Amerindians and people with very high quantities of Amerindian ancestry are usually grouped as caboclos, a subgroup of pardos which roughly translates as both mestizo and hillbilly, for those of lower quantity of Amerindian descent a higher European genetic contribution is expected to be grouped as a pardo. In several genetic tests, people with less than 60-65% of European descent and 5-10% of Amerindian descent usually cluster with Afro-Brazilians (as reported by the individuals), or 6.9% of the population, and those with about 45% or more of Subsaharan contribution most times do so (in average, Afro-Brazilian DNA was reported to be about 50% Subsaharan African, 37% European and 13% Amerindian).

Q1: What categories have an aspect of fluidity?
A1: racial
Q2: What are people with high quantities of Amerindian ancestry grouped as?
A2: caboclos
Q3: What's a rough translation of "pardos"?
A3: hillbilly
Q4: What do people with less than 60-65% of European descent usually cluster with?
A4: Afro-Brazilians
Q5: What percentage of Afro-Brazillian DNA is reported to be Subsaharan African?
A5: 50%
If a more consistent report with the genetic groups in the gradation of miscegenation is to be considered (e.g. that would not cluster people with a balanced degree of African and non-African ancestry in the black group instead of the multiracial one, unlike elsewhere in Latin America where people of high quantity of African descent tend to classify themselves as mixed), more people would report themselves as white and pardo in Brazil (47.7% and 42.4% of the population as of 2010, respectively), because by research its population is believed to have between 65 and 80% of autosomal European ancestry, in average (also >35% of European mt-DNA and >95% of European Y-DNA).

Q1: What would more people report themselves as if a more consistent report were considered?
A1: white
Q2: What do people with a high quality of African descent classify themselves as?
A2: mixed
Q3: Brazil's population is believed to have between what percentages of autosomal European ancestry?
A3: 65 and 80%
Q4: How much of the population of Brazil reported themselves as pardo in 2010?
A4: 42.4%
Q5: Brazil's population is thought to have greater than what percentage of European Y-DNA?
A5: 95%
This is not surprising, though: While the greatest number of slaves imported from Africa were sent to Brazil, totalizing roughly 3.5 million people, they lived in such miserable conditions that male African Y-DNA there is significantly rare due to the lack of resources and time involved with raising of children, so that most African descent originarily came from relations between white masters and female slaves. From the last decades of the Empire until the 1950s, the proportion of the white population increased significantly while Brazil welcomed 5.5 million immigrants between 1821 and 1932, not much behind its neighbor Argentina with 6.4 million, and it received more European immigrants in its colonial history than the United States. Between 1500 and 1760, 700.000 Europeans settled in Brazil, while 530.000 Europeans settled in the United States for the same given time. Thus, the historical construction of race in Brazilian society dealt primarily with gradations between persons of majoritarily European ancestry and little minority groups with otherwise lower quantity therefrom in recent times.

Q1: What is roughly the amount of African slaves imported to Brazil?
A1: 3.5 million
Q2: What conditions did the African slaves in Brazil live in?
A2: miserable
Q3: Most African descent in Brazil came from what sort of congress?
A3: relations between white masters and female slaves
Q4: Between what years did Brazil welcome 5.5 million immigrants?
A4: 1821 and 1932
Q5: Between 1500 and 1760, how many Europeans settled in Brazil?
A5: 700.000
The European Union uses the terms racial origin and ethnic origin synonymously in its documents and according to it "the use of the term 'racial origin' in this directive does not imply an acceptance of such [racial] theories".[full citation needed] Haney López warns that using "race" as a category within the law tends to legitimize its existence in the popular imagination. In the diverse geographic context of Europe, ethnicity and ethnic origin are arguably more resonant and are less encumbered by the ideological baggage associated with "race". In European context, historical resonance of "race" underscores its problematic nature. In some states, it is strongly associated with laws promulgated by the Nazi and Fascist governments in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, in 1996, the European Parliament adopted a resolution stating that "the term should therefore be avoided in all official texts".

Q1: Who uses the terms racial origin and ethnic origin interchangeably?
A1: The European Union
Q2: What does using race as a category within the law legitimize?
A2: its existence
Q3: In what context is the historical use of race underscored by its problematic nature?
A3: European
Q4: Race is strongly associated with laws by what type of governments?
A4: Fascist
Q5: In what year did the European Parliament adopt a resolution to remove "race" from all official texts?
A5: 1996
The concept of racial origin relies on the notion that human beings can be separated into biologically distinct "races", an idea generally rejected by the scientific community. Since all human beings belong to the same species, the ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) rejects theories based on the existence of different "races". However, in its Recommendation ECRI uses this term in order to ensure that those persons who are generally and erroneously perceived as belonging to "another race" are not excluded from the protection provided for by the legislation. The law claims to reject the existence of "race", yet penalize situations where someone is treated less favourably on this ground.

Q1: What relies on the idea humans can be divided into biologically distinct races?
A1: The concept of racial origin
Q2: What community rejects the idea there are biologically distinct races?
A2: scientific
Q3: Why does the ECRI reject theories based on the existence of different races?
A3: all human beings belong to the same species
Q4: What does the ECRI strive to make sure no one becomes?
A4: excluded from the protection provided for by the legislation
Q5: The law penalizes situations where someone is treated less favourably on the ground of what?
A5: race
Since the end of the Second World War, France has become an ethnically diverse country. Today, approximately five percent of the French population is non-European and non-white. This does not approach the number of non-white citizens in the United States (roughly 28–37%, depending on how Latinos are classified; see Demographics of the United States). Nevertheless, it amounts to at least three million people, and has forced the issues of ethnic diversity onto the French policy agenda. France has developed an approach to dealing with ethnic problems that stands in contrast to that of many advanced, industrialized countries. Unlike the United States, Britain, or even the Netherlands, France maintains a "color-blind" model of public policy. This means that it targets virtually no policies directly at racial or ethnic groups. Instead, it uses geographic or class criteria to address issues of social inequalities. It has, however, developed an extensive anti-racist policy repertoire since the early 1970s. Until recently, French policies focused primarily on issues of hate speech—going much further than their American counterparts—and relatively less on issues of discrimination in jobs, housing, and in provision of goods and services.

Q1: France has become a more ethnically diverse country since the end of which war?
A1: Second World War
Q2: What percentage of the French population today is non-European?
A2: approximately five percent
Q3: What is the number of non-white citizens in the United States?
A3: roughly 28–37%
Q4: What issue has the existence of three million non-European people in France forced onto French policy agendas?
A4: ethnic diversity
Q5: What type of model of public policy does France maintain?
A5: color-blind
Since the early history of the United States, Amerindians, African–Americans, and European Americans have been classified as belonging to different races. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories, such as mulatto and octoroon. The criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During Reconstruction, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "one drop" of known "Black blood" to be Black, regardless of appearance.3 By the early 20th century, this notion was made statutory in many states.4 Amerindians continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called blood quantum). To be White one had to have perceived "pure" White ancestry. The one-drop rule or hypodescent rule refers to the convention of defining a person as racially black if he or she has any known African ancestry. This rule meant that those that were mixed race but with some discernible African ancestry were defined as black. The one-drop rule is specific to not only those with African ancestry but to the United States, making it a particularly African-American experience.

Q1: Groups of people have been classified as belonging to difference races since what part of the U.S.'s history?
A1: early
Q2: What did efforts to track mixing between different groups lead to?
A2: a proliferation of categories
Q3: When did the criteria for membership in mixed race groups diverge?
A3: in the late 19th century
Q4: When did increasing numbers of Americans consider anyone with even a drop of "Black blood" to be Black?
A4: During Reconstruction
Q5: What is a particularly African-American experience because it's specific to only the United States?
A5: The one-drop rule