Question:
(CNN) -- Jo-Wilfried Tsonga ended Roger Federer's hopes of winning a record-equaling seventh Wimbledon title on Wednesday as the French 12th seed staged a stunning fightback to reach the semifinals. Federer appeared to be cruising into the last four after winning the first two sets, but Tsonga inflicted the Swiss world No. 3's first defeat from that vantage point in 179 grand slam matches. It was only the third time in the 29-year-old's glittering career that the 16-time grand slam champion had surrendered a two-set lead. Tsonga, ranked 19th in the world, triumphed 3-6 6-7 (3-7) 6-4 6-4 6-4 on Centre Court, serving out to love as he earned a clash with second seed Novak Djokovic. The Serbian, who beat Tsonga in the 2008 Australian Open final, ended the dream run of Australian 18-year-old Bernard Tomic. Tsonga defeated Federer for just the second time in six meetings, their first on grass. "It was amazing. I played unbelievable. It's never easy to come back against Roger. I'm so happy, it's crazy," the 26-year-old told reporters after reaching the semifinals at Wimbledon for the first time. "He's the biggest champion in the sport. He has achieved so much and is the best player in the world. To be two sets down and come back was unbelievable. I served really well. Against Djokovic I will have to come out and do the same again." Federer has now lost in the quarterfinals two years in a row, being beaten by eventual runner-up Tomas Berdych in 2010. "Jo played great. Really from start to finish I don't remember seeing a break point after I broke him in the first game," Federer said. After reading the above, is "Roger Federer" the correct answer to the question "Who did Tsonga beat to earn a clash with second seed Novak Djokovic?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
Representing yourself in court can be a tricky endeavor. There are confusing legal terms to learn, strict procedures to follow and volumes of case law that often need to be understood to prepare a case. Lake County officials and a private agency that assists indigent litigants in Illinois want to make the practice easier by creating a self-help center for people who choose to represent themselves in legal matters. The center, which will be housed in the law library at the main courthouse in Waukegan, could open later this summer. "I think it's going to be extremely helpful," Court Administrator Bob Zastany said. "There is a population out there that will take advantage of this resource." The self-help center will be the only one of its kind in the county. Only a few operate nationwide, officials said. The project is the work of Lake County circuit court officials and Prairie State Legal Services, a statewide agency with an office in Waukegan that provides information and legal assistance to poor and elderly Illinois residents. The organization has received a $25,000 grant from the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation, a nonprofit group that funds programs designed to increase access to legal information and assistance, to help pay for the effort. Prairie State will share the money with the county. The county's law library is on the first floor of the governmental center at 18 N. County St. The new self-help center will be designed to help litigants find the information they need to properly represent themselves in court, an undertaking that can be complicated and confusing. "Some people can do OK on their own, and some people can do OK with some help," said Linda Rothnagel, the managing attorney for Prairie State Legal Services. "But other people can't do it. It's not always easy." Self-representation is a right affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The practice is far more common in civil matters than in criminal cases. In fact, self-represented litigants - formally called "pro se" in Latin, or "for oneself" - in criminal defenses are so rare that statistics about the practice generally are not kept, legal experts say. After reading the above, is "Commonly used in U.S. Supreme Court" the correct answer to the question "What are some facts about self-representation?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website. After reading the above, is "Poverty comparisons" the correct answer to the question "For what topic does Michael Moore fail to cite his sources?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
In Colombia, the drug-financed guerrillas trying to seize the country and destroy democracy include M-19, which Castro has clearly backed. Robert Merkel, a former U.S. attorney handling drug indictments in Florida, doesn't think for a minute that Castro's much publicized trials of high officials engaged in the drug trade mean he has broken off with the Medellin drug cartel. "If the cartel succeeds in blackmailing the Colombian authorities into negotiations, the cartel will be in control and Fidel can exploit his past relationships with them," he told the Journal's David Asman recently. The struggle against the drug lords in Colombia will be a near thing. This week, the government arrested Jose Abello Silva, said to be the fourth-ranking cartel leader. He will probably be extradited to the U.S. for trial under an extradition treaty President Virgilia Barco has revived. Later, another high-ranking trafficker, Leonidas Vargas, was arrested and 1,000 pounds of dynamite seized. Mr. Barco has refused U.S. troops or advisers but has accepted U.S. military aid. President Bush has agreed to meet within 90 days with Mr. Barco, President Alan Garcia of Peru and President Jaime Paz Zamora of Bolivia to discuss the drug problem. It might not be a bad idea to do that sooner, rather than later. After the Panama fiasco, they will need some reassurance. Certainly, the Colombian press is much in need of that. After reading the above, is "Peru" the correct answer to the question "What country revived extradition treaty with the United States?"?

Answer:
no