President Donald Trump's approval rating has headed into unfamiliar territory in recent weeks upward. Trump's approval hit 43 percent in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, with 52 percent disapproving. That represents a 3 percent improvement from last month in the same survey. Several other new surveys also show Trump at or slightly above 40 percent. The RealClearPolitics polling average puts the president's approval rating at 41 percent, a noticeable bump from August, when the rating was often in the mid-30s. For much of the second half of August, Trump's approval rating in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll was either 34 percent or 35 percent, historically a low mark for a new president. On Thursday, Gallup had Trump at 37 percent. The previous day, Trump hit 39 percent, his highest mark since late July. Trump's recent outreach to Democrats on budget issues and, possibly, immigration has boosted his poll numbers, as has his administration's response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of those surveyed approved of Trump's deal with Democrats to fund the government until December and raise the debt ceiling, while 8 percent disapproved. The question is whether Trump has turned a political corner, or is merely seeing a temporary respite from the low poll ratings that have plagued him since the beginning of his presidency. That could depend on whether working with Democrats is a long-range goal or a passing fad, and experts said that making a forecast on that could turn out to be foolish. "When it comes to President Trump, I have gotten out of the prediction business," said Brookings Institution scholar Bill Galston. "For now, this is a significant shift of strategy and tactics. There is no way of knowing whether it will last." It looks as though bipartisan cooperation will not extend to health care, where Senate Republicans are making one last attempt to replace Obamacare. The effort is being led by Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and South Carolina's... Question: What did Trump about bipartisan cooperation in health care and keeping Obamacare? Options: A. Trump wanted to keep everything about Obamacare B. Trump probably wanted to remove Obamacare C. not enough information D. Trump wanted to keep most of Obamacare but change a small amount === The correct answer is
C

A prospective client sent me a link to this in-depth article on IBM's design thinking revolution, where Phil Gilbert, IBM's General Manager of Design, has hired over 1000 designers into the firm, and pushed for over 8000 of its managers and staff to get 'trained' in design thinking. They have even created specific design centres across the firm, with design offices in most of its key locations, such as the one above. The goal is nothing short of beginning IBM's next phase of transformation, one of many in its 100+ year history. However, all is not rosy. Despite achieving a monumental success relative to the status quo, 8000 'recognised' design thinkers in a corporation of over 370,000 souls is barely a dent in terms of changing practice. If NoTosh were to effect change in only 2% of the teachers with whom we work, we'd have packed up our bags long ago. I'm not sure hiring 1000 designers in and of itself is the answer to any organisation trying to instil a different way of viewing the world. Here's why. Since design thinking really began to be a thing, back in the early 60s, the designer him or herself has consistently been at the centre of the design process. Even though we talk of 'user-centred design', the actual ideation and production of a solution, and in many cases the synthesis and definition of the problem to be solve, too, are all tasks undertaken by skilled 'designers', rather than the people in the organisation who have the scope, brand, or 'permission' to play in that space. Once the designers leave the project, so does the design thinking. There is a reason d.school sees its executive courses filled with repeat customers and firms like IDEO continue to thrive - they are resolving challenges in specific examples of services or products, but not necessarily transforming the firms and organisations who had the budget and desire to solve a problem in that specific area. Solving a problem costs money. Solving a problem and teaching the client how to do it again and again costs more than just money.... Question: Why was this plan executed? Options: A. because its potential success was recognized B. because of its cost C. because of the general manager's action D. not enough information === The correct answer is
A

*Question*
It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: How long did the analyzing the tweets between the two groups take? Options: A. not enough information B. two years C. a year D. A month === The correct answer is
**Answer**
D