I do not fully understand exactly what you are asking so I will restate what I believe you are asking and then I will answer it. What was the best excuse that a student ever gave for having failed to do something? I would have to say that I was most entertained by a student's response to "Why are you late for school?" The student said, "I awoke in time this morning but there was a mouse sitting on the edge of my bed. I looked at him and he looked back. The mouse said to me, 'Go back to sleep' and what could I do? He had a gun." The following has worked a few times too when students refuse to talk. That is, I know that one of the assembled students was the culprit for some activity. When they will not talk, I interview them one at a time while the others are kept away from each other. Then when they are assembled before me again, I say, "Thank you gentlemen. I know who did it so you others are free to return to class." All but one arises and leaves. This works more times than not. For years I have given assignments via email and I have collected assignments via email. Nothing has ever gotten lost this way and things are timestamped. I do not have to make photocopies and even students who are not present the day that the assignment is announced in class, get the assignment in a timely manner. One young lady told me, "I turned it in but you must have lost it." "Okay," I said, "Open your sent folder and show me that you sent it." She replied by saying, "I delete my sent folder to keep from clogging up my email." I told her that I understood and that she could show me an empty sent folder to prove that she was telling the truth. She said, "I lied." Question: What never gets lost? Options: - Assignments via email - photocopies - sent folder - not enough information === The correct answer is
Assignments via email

(Question)
U.S. lawmakers grilled Trump administration officials Tuesday about the war in Afghanistan, saying the new White House strategy was inconsistent and was not producing results. The comments made at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing reflected growing frustration in Congress about the U.S.-led war, which is entering its 17th year. As recently as November, General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged that the conflict remained a stalemate. Since then, a wave of high-profile insurgent attacks have rocked the capital, Kabul. The Taliban now controls or contests almost half the country, according to latest U.S. estimates. Despite the setbacks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who is helping oversee the new White House strategy, gave a positive assessment of the conflict. "The president's South Asia strategy is showing some signs of progress," Sullivan said. "On the battlefield, we are seeing the Taliban's momentum begin to slow." But lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism. "Something is clearly not working," said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and longtime Afghan war critic. "By any standard, the current security situation is grim." Some lawmakers took aim at President Donald Trump, who last week said he didn't want to talk with the Taliban a statement that seemingly contradicted his own strategy. After Sullivan and a top Pentagon official told the lawmakers that the U.S. was in fact still open to negotiations with the Taliban, lawmakers pressed for more details. "You can see that the world and those involved in the peace process may be pretty confused about what the U.S. position is. What is it?" asked Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. Sullivan said he thought Trump was expressing a reaction to last month's terrorist attacks, and was pointing out that "significant elements of the Taliban are not prepared to negotiate." "And it may take a long time before they are willing to negotiate," he added. But many in the Senate appear... Question: How long was the Senate's impatience apparent? Options: - over three months - not enough information - about two hours - under 20 minutes. === The correct answer is
(Answer)
about two hours

Question: 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 did Trump try to end North Korea's exports and increase their economic pain? Options: - not enough information - to denuclearize North Korea - because of the attack on the South Korean naval ship - because of past summit failures === The correct answer is
Answer:
to denuclearize North Korea