Here is a question about this article: According to Tabatabaei, there are acceptable and unacceptable esoteric interpretations. Acceptable ta'wil refers to the meaning of a verse beyond its literal meaning; rather the implicit meaning, which ultimately is known only to God and can't be comprehended directly through human thought alone. The verses in question here refer to the human qualities of coming, going, sitting, satisfaction, anger and sorrow, which are apparently attributed to God. Unacceptable ta'wil is where one "transfers" the apparent meaning of a verse to a different meaning by means of a proof; this method is not without obvious inconsistencies. Although this unacceptable ta'wil has gained considerable acceptance, it is incorrect and cannot be applied to the Quranic verses. The correct interpretation is that reality a verse refers to. It is found in all verses, the decisive and the ambiguous alike; it is not a sort of a meaning of the word; it is a fact that is too sublime for words. God has dressed them with words to bring them a bit nearer to our minds; in this respect they are like proverbs that are used to create a picture in the mind, and thus help the hearer to clearly grasp the intended idea.
What is the answer to this question: Which type of esoteric interpretation involves a transfer by proof of a verse's meaning?
****
So... Unacceptable


Here is a question about this article: IMF's forecast said that Greece's unemployment rate would hit the highest 14.8 percent in 2012 and decrease to 14.1 in 2014.  But in fact, the Greek economy suffered a prolonged high unemployemnt. The unemployment figure was between 9 per cent and 11 per cent in 2009, and it soared to 28 per cent in 2013. In 2015, Greece's jobless rate is around 24 per cent. It is thought that Greece's potential output has been eroded by this prolonged massive unemployment due to the associated hysteresis effects.
What is the answer to this question: What did IMF forecast Greece's unemployment rate to be in 2012?
****
So... 14.8 percent


Here is a question about this article: The development of New Imperialism saw the conquest of nearly all eastern hemisphere territories by colonial powers. The commercial colonization of India commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal surrendered his dominions to the British East India Company, in 1765, when the Company was granted the diwani, or the right to collect revenue, in Bengal and Bihar, or in 1772, when the Company established a capital in Calcutta, appointed its first Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and became directly involved in governance.
What is the answer to this question: What did the development of new imperialism cause?
****
So...
the conquest of nearly all eastern hemisphere territories by colonial powers.