Q: A vanishing twin, also known as fetal resorption, is a fetus in a multi-gestation pregnancy which dies in utero and is then partially or completely reabsorbed. In some instances, the dead twin will be compressed into a flattened, parchment-like state known as fetus papyraceus.
Can we conclude that can a twin absorb the other in the womb?
A: yes

Q: Shots that sail wide or high of the net, and shots that hit the goalpost or crossbar, are not counted as shots on goal; they are counted as 'missed shots'. Additionally, if a goaltender stops a puck that is going wide or high anyway, it is recorded as a 'missed shot'. Since it is not counted as a shot on goal, the goaltender does not get credit for a save.
Can we conclude that does hitting the post count as a shot on goal?
A: no

Q: The federal law requires states to have a minimum age of 18 years for sale/purchase of tobacco products (21 U.S.C. 387f. (3)(a)(ii)). State laws may extend this ban and also prohibit supply, possession and consumption to/by person underage. But most of the states do not directly ban the consumption of tobacco by a minor. The federal law requiring states to have a minimum purchasing age at 18 is enforced by withholding FEMA disaster and non-disaster grants from states that have purchasing ages under 18, and currently no state falls under that category.
Can we conclude that is it illegal to smoke cigarettes under 21?
A: no

Q: Presidents of the United States have repeatedly asked the Congress to give them a line-item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, ''Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat.'' Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control ''pork barrel spending'', but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.
Can we conclude that does the president have line item veto power?
A:
no