Here is a question about this article: During the 1960s the Department of Defense continued to scrutinize the reserve forces and to question the number of divisions and brigades as well as the redundancy of maintaining two reserve components, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. In 1967 Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that 15 combat divisions in the Army National Guard were unnecessary and cut the number to 8 divisions (1 mechanized infantry, 2 armored, and 5 infantry), but increased the number of brigades from 7 to 18 (1 airborne, 1 armored, 2 mechanized infantry, and 14 infantry). The loss of the divisions did not set well with the states. Their objections included the inadequate maneuver element mix for those that remained and the end to the practice of rotating divisional commands among the states that supported them. Under the proposal, the remaining division commanders were to reside in the state of the division base. No reduction, however, in total Army National Guard strength was to take place, which convinced the governors to accept the plan. The states reorganized their forces accordingly between 1 December 1967 and 1 May 1968.
What is the answer to this question: How many brigades did the Secretary of Defense increase the number to?
****
So... 18


Here is a question about this article: The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) responded to Berkeley's criticisms of Locke, as well as other differences between early modern philosophers, and moved empiricism to a new level of skepticism. Hume argued in keeping with the empiricist view that all knowledge derives from sense experience, but he accepted that this has implications not normally acceptable to philosophers. He wrote for example, "Locke divides all arguments into demonstrative and probable. On this view, we must say that it is only probable that all men must die or that the sun will rise to-morrow, because neither of these can be demonstrated. But to conform our language more to common use, we ought to divide arguments into demonstrations, proofs, and probabilities—by ‘proofs’ meaning arguments from experience that leave no room for doubt or opposition." And,
What is the answer to this question: What did Hume bring to empiricism?
****
So... a new level of skepticism


Here is a question about this article: Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.
What is the answer to this question: What positions were contained within the House of Lords?
****
So...
bishops, abbots, earls, and barons