str = ' Salesforce '

Index positions:

S(0) a(1) l(2) e(3) s(4) f(5) o(6) r(7) c(8) e(9)

substring(start, end)

Start index inclusive, end index exclusive.

str.substring(0, 5) → characters at indices 0–4 → " Sales "

str.substring(1, 5) → indices 1–4 → " ales "

substr(start, length)

Start index, then number of characters.

str.substr(0, 5) → 5 characters starting at index 0 → " Sales "

str.substr(1, 5) → 5 characters from index 1 → " alesf "

So the expressions that return " Sales " are A and C.

JavaScript consoles (browsers and Node) provide timing utilities:

console.time(label) – starts a timer with the given label.

console.timeEnd(label) – stops the timer and logs the total elapsed time.

console.timeLog(label) – logs the current elapsed time without stopping the timer.

To measure the time taken by each function separately while still using a single overall timer, you can log intermediate times:

console.time( ' Performance ' );

maybeAHeavyFunction();

console.timeLog( ' Performance ' , ' after maybeAHeavyFunction ' );

thisCouldTakeTooLong();

console.timeLog( ' Performance ' , ' after thisCouldTakeTooLong ' );

orMaybeThisOne();

console.timeLog( ' Performance ' , ' after orMaybeThisOne ' );

console.timeEnd( ' Performance ' );

Each console.timeLog( ' Performance ' ) call prints the elapsed time since console.time( ' Performance ' ) was started, so you can infer how long each function took.

Note: console.endTime in the original snippet is incorrect; the real method is console.timeEnd.

Why other options are incorrect:

B. console.trace()

Prints a stack trace, not timing information.

C. console.timeStamp()

Used with browser performance tools; it does not directly show elapsed times like timeLog or timeEnd.

D. console.getTime()

Not a standard console method.

Thus, the function that can be used to obtain timing between calls is:

Answer: A

Study Guide Concepts:

console.time, console.timeLog, console.timeEnd

Measuring performance and intermediate timings

Standard console debugging API methods

Evaluate each test:

A. sum3([1, ' 2 ' ])

Array length is 2 → line 4: arr[0] + arr[1] → 1 + ' 2 ' → ' 12 ' (string).

Assertion: ' 12 ' == 12 is true (type coercion). However, this “test” is not logically correct: a numeric sum function should not be expected to return ' 12 ' as a string. It passes only because of weak equality coercion, so it is not a good/valid test of correct behavior.

B. sum3([ ' hello ' , 2, 3, 4])

Length ≥ 3 → line 5: ' hello ' + 2 + 3 → ' hello2 ' + 3 → ' hello23 ' .

' hello23 ' === NaN is always false because NaN is never equal to anything, not even itself. This assertion fails and also misunderstands how NaN comparisons work.

C. sum3([-3, 2])

Length 2 → -3 + 2 = -1.

Assertion: -1 === -1 → true. This is a correct and meaningful test.

D. sum3([0])

Length 1 → returns arr[0] → 0.

Assertion: 0 === 0 → true. Also a correct and meaningful test.

Therefore, the valid and logically correct tests here are C and D.

import * as lib from ' ... ' imports all named exports from the module into the namespace object lib.

You then call:

lib.foo();

lib.bar();

Option D correctly imports only foo and bar, not every function. The question explicitly says “import every function… and then call foo and bar”, so A best matches.

Options B and C are invalid syntax or reference the wrong identifier.

The function:

async function functionUnderTest(isOK) {

if (isOK) return ' OK ' ;

throw new Error( ' not OK ' );

}

Behavior:

If isOK is true:

The function resolves (fulfills the promise) with value ' OK ' .

If isOK is false:

The function throws, which in an async function becomes a rejected promise with Error( ' not OK ' ).

We want an assertion that accurately tests the successful path for isOK === true.

Key points about console.assert:

Signature: console.assert(condition, message?)

If condition is falsy , it logs message as an assertion failure.

If condition is truthy , nothing is logged.

We also must understand await:

await functionUnderTest(true) will resolve to the string ' OK ' .

Now evaluate options.

Option A:

console.assert(await functionUnderTest(true), ' OK ' );

await functionUnderTest(true) → ' OK ' (truthy).

console.assert( ' OK ' , ' OK ' );

Condition is ' OK ' (truthy), so assertion passes.

The message ' OK ' is only shown if the condition is falsy, which it is not.

This correctly verifies that the promise resolved (i.e., did not reject). Among the given options, this is the only one that both:

Uses await properly on the async function, and

Associates the message with the expected success " OK " .

Option B:

console.assert(await (functionUnderTest(true), ' not OK ' ));

Inside the parentheses, the comma operator (a, b) evaluates a, discards it, and returns b.

So (functionUnderTest(true), ' not OK ' ):

Calls functionUnderTest(true) (returns a promise, but its result is discarded),

The expression evaluates to the string ' not OK ' .

Then await ' not OK ' just resolves to ' not OK ' immediately (not a promise).

console.assert( ' not OK ' );

Condition is ' not OK ' (truthy), so the assertion passes regardless of what functionUnderTest actually does.

This does not meaningfully test the function and is misleading.

Option C:

console.assert(functionUnderTest(true), ' OK ' );

functionUnderTest(true) returns a Promise , not the string ' OK ' directly.

A Promise object is always truthy.

So console.assert(promise, ' OK ' ) will pass, even if the promise later rejects.

Also, there is no await, so we are not actually waiting for the async result.

This is not a correct way to assert on an async function’s resolved value.

Option D:

console.assert(await functionUnderTest(true), ' not OK ' );

await functionUnderTest(true) still resolves to ' OK ' (truthy).

console.assert( ' OK ' , ' not OK ' ); passes.

However, the message ' not OK ' is the opposite of what we expect for the success case and is only used when the condition fails.

This makes the assertion logically inconsistent with the function behavior (it would show " not OK " if the assertion failed).

Therefore, the only assertion that:

Properly waits on the async function, and

Has expectation text that matches the successful behavior ( ' OK ' )

is:

Answer: A

Study Guide / Concept References (no links):

async and await behavior in JavaScript

Promises resolving vs rejecting in async functions

console.assert(condition, message) usage

Truthy and falsy values in JavaScript

Comma operator (a, b) semantics

Event-driven Node-style APIs expose events via .on(eventName, handler).

To listen for error events:

server.on( ' error ' , (error) = > {

console.log( ' ERROR ' , error);

});

A and B assume methods .error or .catch that don’t exist on typical event emitters.

C only catches synchronous errors from server.start(), not async event-based errors.

Key details:

var has function scope , not block scope.

Declaration var msg is hoisted to the top of the function, but initialization only happens if the if condition is true.

Effectively, the function behaves like:

function getAvailableilityMessage(item) {

var msg; // hoisted declaration

if (getAvailableility(item)) {

msg = " Username available " ;

}

return msg;

}

Now, given:

getAvailableility( " newUserName " ) returns false.

Execution:

The if condition is false, so the body does not execute.

Therefore msg is declared but never assigned .

In JavaScript, an uninitialized variable that has been declared with var has the value undefined.

Thus:

return msg; // returns undefined

Why other options are wrong:

A: " newUserName " – msg never receives the parameter value; it ' s only set to " Username available " inside the if, which does not run.

B: " msg is not defined " – That kind of error occurs if msg were never declared. Here it is declared via var, so it is defined but undefined.

D: " Username available " – This would require the if branch to run, which it does not when getAvailableility(...) is false.

So the return value is:

undefined

Study Guide Concepts:

var hoisting and function scope

Uninitialized variables default to undefined

Control flow and conditional initialization

When async is added to a function:

async function example() {}

JavaScript guarantees:

The function always returns a Promise , regardless of what is returned inside.

Inside the function, await pauses execution until a Promise resolves.

Code appears synchronous even though it uses asynchronous behavior.

Analysis of each option:

A incorrect: Not " sometimes " —an async function always returns a Promise.

B incorrect: Async functions can be called just like normal functions.

C incorrect: Async/await has nothing to do with classes specifically.

D correct: This is the standard description: “Async functions behave asynchronously but allow writing code that looks synchronous.”

JavaScript Knowledge References (text-only)

async functions always return Promises.

await pauses execution of the async function.

Async/await syntax creates synchronous-looking code on top of asynchronous operations.

In ES6 class syntax, the special method used to initialize a new instance is called constructor.

A class definition syntax:

class ClassName {

constructor(param1, param2) {

this.prop1 = param1;

this.prop2 = param2;

}

}

The constructor method:

Is called automatically when you create a new instance with new ClassName(...).

Receives the arguments passed in the new expression.

Assigns values to this to set instance properties.

Applying this to Story

We want to be able to write:

const article = new Story( ' Some body ' , ' Author Name ' , 100);

and have:

article.body === ' Some body '

article.author === ' Author Name '

article.viewCount === 100

To achieve this, the class must have:

class Story {

constructor(body, author, viewCount) {

this.body = body;

this.author = author;

this.viewCount = viewCount;

}

}

So the correct line 02 is:

constructor(body, author, viewCount) {

Why the other options are incorrect

A. constructor() {

This defines a constructor with no parameters.

The lines inside the constructor use body, author, and viewCount, which would be undefined unless they exist in an outer scope (they normally do not).

This would lead to the instance properties being set to undefined in normal usage.

B. super(body, author, viewCount) {

super(...) is used inside a constructor of a subclass to call the parent class constructor.

You cannot use super(...) { as a method definition; this is invalid syntax in a class body.

Additionally, Story as given is not shown extending any class, so super is inappropriate here.

C. function Story(body, author, viewCount) {

Inside a class definition, you do not use the function keyword to define methods.

function Story(...) here would be invalid syntax in a class body.

Even if it were allowed, the special constructor method for a class is named constructor, not the class name.

Therefore, only:

constructor(body, author, viewCount) {

correctly declares the constructor for the Story class and ensures instances created with new Story(body, author, viewCount) have all three properties populated.

References / Study Guide concepts (no links):

ES6 class syntax

constructor method in classes

this and instance properties in classes

Difference between class constructors and regular functions

Invalid use of super and function inside class bodies

The code:

let timerId = setInterval(timedFunction, 1000);

setInterval schedules timedFunction to run every 1000 ms.

It returns an interval ID (here stored in timerId), which is used to cancel the interval later.

To cancel:

Use clearInterval(timerId);

This is the standard browser (and Node.js) API:

let id = setInterval(fn, delay);

clearInterval(id); stops future executions of that interval.

Check other options:

B. removeInterval(timerId);

There is no removeInterval function in the standard JavaScript timer API.

C. removeInterval(timedFunction);

Again, no such function; and timers are cancelled by ID, not by the callback function reference.

D. clearInterval(timedFunction);

clearInterval expects the ID returned by setInterval, not the callback function.

Passing the function does not cancel the timer.

Therefore, the correct statement is:

Answer: A

Study Guide / Concept References (no links):

Timer APIs: setInterval and clearInterval

Relationship between timer ID and cancellation

Difference between interval ID and callback function

Basic async timing patterns in JavaScript