Problem: Magnets are able to place a force on certain materials. This force is called a magnetic force. The force a magnet exerts is a little different from the forces you may normally think about. You exert a force on a book when you lift it. You also exert a force on the pedals of your bicycle. In both those cases, those forces cause a change. The change you see in both these cases is called motion. Magnets, too, can produce change. They can produce motion just like you do. Unlike you, magnets do not have to touch something to exert a force. A magnetic force is exerted over a distance. Thats right, a magnet can push or pull certain items without ever touching them. Thats how the maglev train works. Do you know another type of force that does not require objects to touch? These forces are known as non-contact forces. Another type of non-contact force you may be familiar with is gravity. Gravity too can cause changes in motion. Gravity holds our moon in orbit without touching it.

Question: "Does a magnet have to be touching an object to assert push or pull?"

Answer: "No it is exerted over a distance"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Problem: After the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. government tried to develop a clearer picture of Bin Laden's finances. A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Laden was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true. The officials developed a new theory: al Qaeda was getting its money elsewhere, and the United States needed to focus on other sources of funding, such as charities, wealthy donors, and financial facilitators. Ultimately, although the intelligence community devoted more resources to the issue and produced somewhat more intelligence, it remained difficult to distinguish al Qaeda's financial transactions among the vast sums moving in the international financial system. The CIA was not able to find or disrupt al Qaeda's money flows. The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources. Within the United States, various FBI field offices gathered intelligence on organizations suspected of raising funds for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. By 9/11, FBI agents understood that there were extremist organizations operating within the United States supporting a global jihadist movement and with substantial connections to al Qaeda. The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Diego, and Minneapolis. On a national level, however, the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising. Treasury regulators, as well as U.S. financial institutions, were generally focused on finding and deterring or disrupting the vast flows of U.S. currency generated by drug trafficking and high-level international fraud. Large-scale scandals, such as the use of the Bank of New York by Russian money launderers to move millions of dollars out of Russia, captured the attention of the Department of the Treasury and of Congress. Before 9/11, Treasury did not consider terrorist financing important enough to mention in its national strategy for money laundering.

Question: "Who were on opposite sides of the idea to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center?"

Answer: "Congress"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Problem: (CNN) -- Women seeking an abortion in Texas will have to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure, under a law that takes effect September 1. The bill stirred some controversy in Texas, but it easily passed through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans. It was signed into law Thursday by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The law says that at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed, women must undergo a sonogram, a procedure that uses ultrasound to create an image. The doctor, then, is required to give, "in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs," the law states. There are some exceptions, including pregnancies that resulted from sexual assault, incest or other violations of law. Women seeking abortions also are exempt if the fetus has been found to have an irreversible medical condition that will cause a disability. "Governor Perry was pleased to sign this important legislation, which bolsters our efforts to protect life by ensuring Texans are fully informed when considering such an important decision," said his deputy press secretary, Lucy Nashed. Critics say the new law is unnecessary. "What no one is focusing on is that this is a mandate to humiliate women who want an abortion," said Yvonne Gutierrez, vice president for public affairs at the Planned Parenthood Trust of South Texas. Texas already requires a 24-hour consent period, and the new law will simply add emotional and financial costs to those seeking abortions, she said.

Question: "What was signed into law on Thursday by Republican Gov. Rick Perry?"

Answer: "A bill of rights"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer:
no