Ques:Once again, I've analysed my year of travel to see if I'm any closer to reducing it year on year. It's an annual habit, and if often kicks off new ideas that might affect my team's next year of work. The good answer is: yes, there is less travel! And not just that, but having reduced the schlepping I do, I've been able to hire more amazing people to lead on our work, and celebrate one of NoTosh's best years ever in terms of the quality, quantity and breadth of work we're doing. Key to traveling less has been a marked increase in the number of folk who see and are now reaping the value of working with us online. I've avoided as many as 20,000 miles of travel thanks to greener clients, who are also many dollars better off having not paid for the airmiles that are wrapped up in our regular fee structure. The quality of our work is better, too, thanks to this. We are doing fewer of those day-long workshops with teachers or leaders, when an hour or even thirty minutes before the day gets started is more worthwhile. We're seeing more school leaders take this up, although it's harder to get teachers into the habit of taking 30 minutes 'me time' to jump into a coaching session on the day or week ahead. But it's starting, and the value to us all is huge. Coaching is very different to 'consulting a Personal Learning Network' on Twitter. It's intense, targeted, focussed and involves a one-on-one discussion that arrives quickly at resolutions to current day challenges that will have a long-term impact. And we come back to measure whether that impact actually happened. I don't think it's a way of working that many are used to in Education, although many corporate clients have had some rare experience with it. Encouraging both groups to take more regular time out for coaching, little and often, is a real challenge, but we're beginning to see some huge impact from relatively little input (and relatively few dollars!). Question: Who coaches online? Options:  A. scholars  B. Many teachers who want to reduce travel  C. online teachers  D. not enough information  === The correct answer is

Ans:B
-----
Ques:So this thing happened today. I am living in a society where there are almost 90 houses and almost all of them are occupied. We have one sweeper hired for whole society to collect waste and sweep out dust from our society roads. BTW her name is Hira masi (my brother calls her diamond masi :p). And she is extremely poor and she lives in those slums where almost nothing is available. She earns 50/100 per house each month. (Source) As she is extremely poor, all the society people help her a lot. From giving 2 times food to giving clothes and giving bonuses on special occasion as much as Rs. 1000, they almost help her in each and every aspect. And this is by far the most incredible thing our society has which is humanity. But the twist comes here. On the other side, she is extremely cunning. She rarely cleans the road, takes rarely wastes from homes, gives excuses that she is sick and does not come for work, etc. She does not do her work properly. She also request money from us saying that her family members are ill as much as Rs 10000, even if they are not. So this thing was discussed in our meeting and there some decided to continue her as she was very poor and some decided to leave her. But my mom today told me a great thing- If a person is doing her work seriously, then we will surely help him in every way, even if it is a matter of money, but the person who is not sincere and not doing work properly, then sometimes we have to step back from humanity and be strict. If the person is honest and he is REALLY in need of help, we should definitely help them. But the person who just fakes that he is in need, we should be strict/ignore them, else they will not do any work, and just simply rely on us. Sometimes, being strict and giving up humanity will make the person grow. Question: How long was the authors meeting? Options:  A. 3 hours  B. not enough information  C. 4 hours  D. 30 minutes  === The correct answer is

Ans:D
-----
Ques:WHITE HOUSE — President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump’s tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It’s unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it’s an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president’s comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump’s comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... Question: The law professor Susan Low Bloch probably thinks that: Options:  A. Trump's statement is not a surprise.  B. not enough information  C. Trump's statement is inexpected.  D. The courts will allow Trump to pardon himself.  === The correct answer is

Ans:
C
-----