Lightning-Fast Doubt Resolution

Based on the information answer the questions which follow.

Eight officers of Indian Trade Service meet for a cup of coffee at Coffee Point. The officers P, Q, R, S, T. U. V and W are seated in a circle and discuss issues related to Trade in Services, Trade in Intellectual Property Rights, Investments, Tariffs, Remedies, Standards, Trade Facilitation and Subsides not necessarily in the same order. An MBA student sitting on the next table overhears the discussion and ranks the issues as per their importance from 1 to 8. No two issues can have the same rank and no two officers can have the same position. Additional information available is:

i. P is sitting to the immediate left of S and the officer opposite to S discusses issues pertaining to Remedies.

ii. U's issue is ranked $$7^{th}$$ and there is one officer between U and the officer whose issue is ranked $$2^{nd}$$.

iii. The officer whose issue is ranked 1 is not opposite to the officer whose issue is ranked 8 who represents issues related to Investments.

iv. The ranks of the issues raised by the officers sitting opposite to each other cannot be both even or both odd.

v. The officer discussing issues related to Trade in Services is sitting opposite to T. T is sitting at a gap of one place from P.

vi. R is sitting opposite to Q and represent issues related to Standards and Trade in Intellectual Property Rights not necessarily in the same order.

vii. P's issue was ranked 4th and he was discussing issues related to Tariffs and sits opposite to the officer ranked 5th who represents issues related to Subsidies.

viii. The officers representing issues related to Trade in Services and Trade facilitation are sitting adjacent to each other.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions. 

We should never confuse education with training or the ‘tools’ that educators use. Education is no more a computer or online class than it is a chalkboard- those are simply tools. Additionally, precious few new and relevant findings have been added to the learning process; much of what many proclaim to be insightful turns out to be faddish and misguided. What we need for learning to occur are well prepared and motivated teachers, students who are willing and able to learn and a social system that values educational attainment. Many might take exception to these assertions, raising a host of ancillary social, economic, nutritional and sociological issues. However, decades of data from failed public experiments aimed at mitigating these problems argue to the contrary.

What are we to do? Create a way of education entrepreneurship? Despite all of the hype and media attention, no one currently knows the best way forward. We must incentivize educationalists, technologists, and classroom teacher to experiment and innovate. Such partnerships should truly explore alternatives as we seek define the blended face-to-face and online classroom of the future. Some approaches will fail, but that is part of the change process.

There will be no one-size-fits-all experience as success will vary by discipline and education objectives. Unless everyone involved in this process is inspired to take risks, we will not enjoy the full potential these new approaches represent. Also, we should not forget the extent to which those who most benefit from the current system will attempt to hijack this change process for their own purposes. With these issues in mind, consider the following vision of the changes process to the classroom of tomorrow - a vision that leverages technology to create a more personalized learning experience. With the onset of this vision the professor-student relationship will change. What is not likely to survive is the large class in which everyone progresses at the same pace

That paradigm will be replaced by a more customized and collaborative learning process. The reality of a technology enabled personalized learning environment is still evolving. What seems clear is that its heart is a more collaborative and students- mapped and paced process. The function of the professor, aided by educationalists, will also change.

Student-professor collaboration will then determine both what content can be assigned to practice methods and how the students demonstrate mastery of that content. In such cases, timing issues will most likely be left entirely in the student’s hands, while technology specialists recommend the best hardware and software solutions.

Critical thinking or application ideas will involve specialized, face-to-face and interactive online approaches geared to the real-time needs and progress the student is making. Thus, the professor, with the student's help, will vigilantly mix and blend the learning ingredients to produce a new learning environment. How this process plays out in reality will be the result of educational entrepreneurship but is will surely entail both successes and some failure.

The administration and accreditation of education will also have to change. As education moves outside the bricks and mortar framework and is more centered on the student-Professor interaction, the role of all non-teaching staff will need to be reassessed. As students and faculty increase their use of technology to personalize their formal and informal learning, education technologists must be on hand to facilitate the effective use of that technology.

Also, the current hierarchical and standardized outcome formulas for administration and accreditation of colleges and universities are no longer tenable. Realistically, they are an impediment to the change needed.

Finally, we must address one of the most serious challenges facing online education-cheating. Simply put, cheating is rampant, and we are turning a blind eye to the problem. Cheating threatens the integrity of the education process and the value-addition of the degree. Solutions must be found and implemented or all changes will be for naught.