Question: CHAPTER XV. 

THE ISLAND REFUGE. 

The night was intensely cold and still and the stars shone brightly through the bare boughs overhead. "Are you sure you are going all right?" Nelly asked Harold. "It is so dark here that it seems impossible to know which way we are going." "You can trust the Indians," Harold said. "Even if there was not a star to be seen they could find their way by some mysterious instinct. How you are grown, Nelly! Your voice does not seem much changed, and I am longing to see your face." 

"I expect you are more changed than I am, Harold," the girl answered. "You have been going through so much since we last met, and you seem to have grown so tall and big. Your voice has changed very much, too; it is the voice of a man. How in the world did you find us here?" 

Pearson had gone on ahead to speak to the Seneca, but he now joined them again. 

"You mustn't talk," he said. "I hope there's no redskins within five miles of us now, but there's never any saying where they may be." 

There was, Harold thought, a certain sharpness in the hunter's voice, which told of a greater anxiety than would be caused by the very slight risk of the quietly spoken words being heard by passing redskins, and he wondered what it could be. 

They were now, he calculated, within a mile of the hiding place where they had left the boat, and they had every reason for believing that none of the Indians would be likely to have followed the shore so far. That they would be pursued and that, in so heavily laden a canoe, they would have great difficulty in escaping, he was well aware, but he relied on the craft of the hunters and Senecas for throwing their pursuers off the trail.  1. How far away was the hiding place?
2. What did they leave there?
3. Who were they hoping to avoid?
4. What did they wish were 5 miles away?
5. What time of day was it?
6. Was it warm out?
7. Was it a starry night?
8. Who could be trusted?
9. According to whom?
10. Who was he reassuring?
11. Who went before them?
12. Why?
13. Did he return? Provide a numbered list of answers.
****
A numbered of answers: 1. within a mile
2. boat
3. the Indians
4. redskins
5. night
6. No
7. Yes
8. the Indians
9. Harold
10. Nelly
11. Pearson
12. to speak to the Seneca
13. Yes

Q: A man has been charged with a federal hate crime in connection with what authorities say was a racially motivated "knockout" assault against an elderly black man, the U.S. Justice Department said Thursday. 

Conrad Alvin Barrett, 27, of Katy, Texas, has been charged with one count of violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 

According to the federal complaint, Barrett attacked the 79-year-old man "because of the man's race and color." He will next appear in court Friday afternoon for a detention hearing. 

The suspect made a video of the attack November 24, the complaint said. In the video, he allegedly commented that "the plan is to see if I were to hit a black person, would this be nationally televised?" 

He then allegedly "hit the man with such force that the man immediately fell to the ground. Barrett then laughed and said 'knockout,' as he ran to his vehicle and fled." 

The victim suffered two jaw fractures and was hospitalized for several days, the complaint said. 

Barrett's attorney, George Parnham, told CNN the affidavit does not "pull back the layers of mental health." 

His client has bipolar disorder and takes medication, Parnham said in an earlier call. 

Parnham said he could not state whether his client carried out the attack, but, "mental health issues definitely played a part in anything that occurred." 

Barrett "is very sorry for this person," Parnham said, adding that he and his client haven't had much opportunity to discuss the facts of the case. 

1. Hate Crimes
2. knockout" assault
3. elderly black man
4. 79
5. November 24
6. be nationally televised
7. does not "pull back the layers of mental health
8. 52 years
9. yes
10. several days
11. wo jaw fractures
12. bipolar
13. yes
14. yes
15. laughed and said 'knockout
16. George Parnham
17. Katy
18. Texas
19. no
20. Conrad Alvin Barrett

Numbered questions:
1. What was the man charged with?
2. What kind of hate crime?
3. Against who?
4. How old was the black man?
5. When did it happen?
6. What was his plan?
7. What did his attorney say?
8. How much younger is the attacker?
9. Did the victim spend any time in the hospital?
10. how long?
11. For what?
12. What disorder does the attacker have?
13. Does he take medication for it?
14. Is the attacker remorseful?
15. Why was it called a knockout assault?
16. Who is his counsel?
17. Where did the attacker live?
18. Where is that?
19. Is it a state crime?
20. What is the name of the attacker?

input: Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications. While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way,[page needed] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. 

There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined. Nonetheless, some scholars argue that racial categories obviously correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree, and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation. 1. Do people think race labels are natural or made by society?
2. Do they think race can be attributed strictly to biology?
3. Does everyone agree?
4. Why not?
5. Do they have any other reasons?
6. What are they?
7. Does this cause a division of opinion?
8. About what?
9. Are there any wide ranging things that are generally agreed upon?
10. What are they?
11. Anything else?
12. What core group are all people a part of?
13. What's that called?
14. Is there a subgroup?
15. And what is that?
16. What do most science enthusiasts agree about essentially?
17. Does this cause the majority to view it the same then?
18. How do some folks feel racial comparisons come across?
19. What do they think isn't significant?
20. Do some folks have distinct racial concepts for hyper clear trait settings? Return numbered answers in your output.

output:
1. socially constructed
2. no
3. no
4. some argue that racial categories correlate with biological traits
5. yes
6. certain genetic markers correspond to traditional racial groupings
7. yes
8. about whether racial categories can have significance for understanding human genetic variation
9. yes
10. racial categories are socially constructed
11. and racial groups cannot be biologically defined
12. the same species
13. Homo sapiens
14. yes
15. subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens
16. that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable
17. no
18. naive or simplistic
19. race has no taxonomic significance
20. no