Question:
Chemical changes produce new substances. For this reason, they often cannot be undone. Some chemical changes can be reversed, sort of. To do so requires another chemical change to take place. For example, you can undo the tarnish on copper pennies by placing them in vinegar. The acid in the vinegar reacts with the tarnish. This is a chemical change that makes the pennies bright and shiny again. You can try this yourself at home to see how well it works. Other chemical changes cannot be reversed at all or may be difficult to do. Rusting is a chemical change. If metal rusts, the best you can do is to sand off the rust to get down to the shiny metal. Although the metal may now be shiny, the rust was removed. The rust was not changed back into the original metal. Some chemical reactions occur in only one direction. These reactions are called irreversible reactions. For example, you cannot change a fried egg back into a raw egg. Can you think of some other irreversible reactions related to cooking? Would you like a piece of cake? After reading the above, is "placing pennies in vinegar" the correct answer to the question "What can you do to make pennies bright and shiny again?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
The second major point on which the principals had agreed on March 10 was the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their fund-raising. The embassy bombings of 1998 had focused attention on al Qaeda's finances. One result had been the creation of an NSC-led interagency committee on terrorist financing. On its recommendation, the President had designated Bin Laden and al Qaeda as subject to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This gave theTreasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the ability to search for and freeze any Bin Laden or al Qaeda assets that reached the U.S. financial system. But since OFAC had little information to go on, few funds were frozen. In July 1999, the President applied the same designation to the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. Here, OFAC had more success. It blocked more than $34 million in Taliban assets held in U.S. banks. Another $215 million in gold and $2 million in demand deposits, all belonging to the Afghan central bank and held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were also frozen. After October 1999, when the State Department formally designated al Qaeda a "foreign terrorist organization," it became the duty of U.S. banks to block its transactions and seize its funds. Neither this designation nor UN sanctions had much additional practical effect; the sanctions were easily circumvented, and there were no multilateral mechanisms to ensure that other countries' financial systems were not used as conduits for terrorist funding. Attacking the funds of an institution, even the Taliban, was easier than finding and seizing the funds of a clandestine worldwide organization like al Qaeda. Although the CIA's Bin Laden unit had originally been inspired by the idea of studying terrorist financial links, few personnel assigned to it had any experience in financial investigations. Any terrorist-financing intelligence appeared to have been collected collaterally, as a consequence of gathering other intelligence. This attitude may have stemmed in large part from the chief of this unit, who did not believe that simply following the money from point A to point B revealed much about the terrorists' plans and intentions. As a result, the CIA placed little emphasis on terrorist financing. Nevertheless, the CIA obtained a general understanding of how al Qaeda raised money. After reading the above, is "There were no multilateral mechanisms to prevent other countries' financial systems from being used to circumvent the sanctions" the correct answer to the question "Why was it difficult for U.S. banks to block the transactions of and seize the funds of al Qaeda despite it being designated a "foreign terrorist organization"?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued. After reading the above, is "China" the correct answer to the question "Where was President Clinton's one day stop-over on March 25, 2000?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
When a stream or river slows down, it starts dropping its sediments. Larger sediments are dropped in steep areas. Some smaller sediments can still be carried by a slow moving stream or river. Smaller sediments are dropped as the slope becomes less steep. Alluvial Fans In arid regions, a mountain stream may flow onto flatter land. The stream comes to a stop rapidly. The deposits form an alluvial fan. Deposition also occurs when a stream or river empties into a large body of still water. In this case, a delta forms. A delta is shaped like a triangle. It spreads out into the body of water. After reading the above, is "Banks" the correct answer to the question "Where do smaller sediments get dropped when a river or stream slows down?"?

Answer:
no