The air exploded in a flash of bone and steel and blood. The clash of metal rang through the forest. An arrow pierced through the darkness, its barbed head tearing through flesh and muscle. A roar echoed off of the mountains far to the west. A cry broke through soon after. Then silence. Char stood over a pile of black fur and red blood. He held a curved sword, jagged half way down the wide blade and hilted in bone. He held a large thick bow in the other. Lorfel and Ranur stood behind him, panting. Lorfel, a short man of twenty six held a large axe in both hands and still prepared to swing it hard. Ranur, the largest of the three held a pike in one hand, its tip hanging low towards the ground. He buried his other hand in his gray tunic. "Did it get either of you?" Char's voice rasped low in the silence of the night. "No" Lorfel said. He planted his axe head on the ground with a thud and leaned on the tall handle. There was a pause. Char turned towards Ranur. "Are you hurt?" "Mm...My hand." Ranur took his hand out of his tunic. Moonlight gleamed red off of the ragged wound. Char thought he saw a glimmer of bone. "Did he claw you or bite you?" Char's voice held an urgency that set both Lorfel and Ranur on edge. Ranur paused and then spoke low. "He bit me." Char picked Lorfel and Ranur as his hunting partners for their speed and sharpness in battle. They had hunted beasts of the deep woods all of their lives. They hunted the beasts that hunted men. They all knew the risks of battling such creatures. The old man dropped his curved sword, drew his bow, and fired. The arrow hammered into Ranur's chest, burying itself in his heart. Lorfel saw the gleaming arrow head sticking almost a foot out of his companion's back. Ranur fell face first to the ground. Question: Who bit Ranur? Options: A. the beast B. Lorfel C. not enough information D. Char === The correct answer is
A

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: What is probably true about airmiles? Options: A. Airmiles are rewarding B. not enough information C. Airmiles are costly D. Airmiles are inexpensive === The correct answer is
C

SEOUL This week's summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, to be held on Friday, April 27, is expected to produce a denuclearization framework that U.S. President Donald Trump could support when he meets with Kim in May or June. The North's reassuring outreach of late, including its decision to unilaterally suspend all nuclear and missile tests, has set an optimistic tone that a deal can be reached. But it is still unclear if real progress toward peace can be achieved. There have been two past inter-Korean Summits in 2000 and 2007, both held in the North. The first produced a joint peace declaration promoting humanitarian exchanges and economic cooperation. From the second came support for a permanent peace treaty and a U.S. and China-led deal to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program for economic assistance and security guarantees. However, North Korea's continued nuclear development efforts and missile tests, in violation of past agreements, and other hostile acts, including a alleged deadly attack on a South Korean naval ship in 2010, brought an end to any progress made at these summits. Leading up to this week's inter-Korean summit, there are encouraging developments that a nuclear deal may again be within reach. U.S. President Donald Trump's maximum pressure campaign, that led efforts to impose harsh international sanctions ending most North Korean exports, are exerting increasing economic pain that could be pressuring the leadership in Pyongyang to actually give up its nuclear arsenal this time. "If the situation continues, the foreign exchange could be depleted and North Korea can face a very serious situation at the end of this year. This is one of the reasons why it has come out in favor of dialogue," said Cheong Seong-Chang, a senior North Korea analyst at the Sejong Institute in South Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has made a number of concessions already by agreeing to talk about denuclearization without conditions, by appearing to drop past... Question: Why was there a halt in the progress made at the 2000 and 2007 summits? Options: A. North Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons B. not enough information C. North Korea has ended Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program D. North Korea has imposed harsh international sanctions === The correct answer is
A