Question:
The Reconquest: The aim of the Crusades in Spain was the eviction of the Muslims. After the recovery of Jerusalem in 1099, it took four hundred years of sieges and battles, treaties, betrayals, and yet more battles, before Christian kings and warlords succeeded in subduing the Moors. On 10 September 1229, a Catalan army led by King Jaume I of Aragon and Catalunya took the Mallorcan shore near the present-day resort of Santa Ponca. The defenders retreated inside the walls of Palma, but on the last day of 1229 the city fell, and pockets of resistance throughout the island were also defeated. Jaume I proved to be an enlightened ruler who profited from the talents of the Moorsconverted by force to Christianityas well as of the island's large Jewish and Genoese trading communities. Mallorca prospered. The Moors on Menorca speedily agreed to pay an annual tribute to Aragon and were left in peace. The island's tranquility lasted until 1287, when Alfonso III of Aragon, smarting over a series of humiliations at the hands of his nobles, found a pretext for invasion. The Moors were defeated and expelled or killed. In contrast to Mallorca, Menorca's economy was devastated for decades. Jaume I died after reigning in Aragon for six decades, but he made the cardinal error of dividing between his sons the lands he had fought for so long to unite. At first this resulted in an Independent Kingdom of Mallorca, under Jaume II, followed by Sanc and Jaume III. But family rivalry triggered the overthrow of Jaume III by his cousin Pedro IV, who then seized the Balearics for Aragon. Attempting a comeback, Jaume was killed in battle near Llucmajor in 1349. A newly unified Christian Spain under the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, completed the Reconquest, defeating the only Moorish enclave left on the Iberian peninsula, Granada, in 1492. However, the centralized kingdom failed to incorporate the Balearics politically or economically. After reading the above, is "Family rivalry triggered the overthrow of Jaume III by his cousin Pedro IV, who then seized the Balearics for Aragon. Sent 14: Attempting a comeback, Jaume was killed in battle near Llucmajor in 1349" the correct answer to the question "Jaume was defeated by whom and died in what year?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
For thousands of years, people have found fossils. The fossils caused curiosity about Earths past. How did these organisms live? What type of world did they live in? Fossils can tell us a lot about Earths history. In ancient times, fossils inspired myths and stories. These stories included tales of monsters and other incredible creatures. What type of creature do you know that could inspire such stories? Of course, dinosaur fossils were once mistaken for dragons bones. Two thousand years ago, people discovered fossils in China. At the time, they were thought to be dragon bones. We know now that these were not bones, but fossils. So what is the difference? After reading the above, is "How old the creatures were" the correct answer to the question "What kind of things can fossils tell us?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
Flowing water causes sediment to move. Flowing water can erode both rocks and soil. You have already learned that materials can dissolve in water. With enough time, even rocks can be dissolved by water. This process happens really slowly. It may take over a million years to dissolve a rock. It doesnt matter how big the rock is. With enough time, flowing water can dissolve it. Moving water also has the ability to move small pieces of rock and soil. How can water move a rock? Doesnt it need energy? Of course, water gets its energy because it is moving. Moving water has kinetic energy. Things that have more energy can do more work. When water stops moving it will have no energy. It will no longer be able to move the rock and soil. When this happens the rock and soil will settle to the bottom of the calm water. Scientists call this process deposition. After reading the above, is "Moving water has kinetic energy" the correct answer to the question "Does moving water have kinetic energy?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion. After reading the above, is "The entire movie is false" the correct answer to the question "Name three criticisms of Moore's movie."?

Answer:
no