In Ralph Ellison's Battle Royal, what is the significance of the electrified rug covered with bills and coins? How does this scene show the power...

Ralph Ellison's short story Battle Royal is a serious indictment of those who sought to play 'the white man's game' in the misguided belief that such conduct would somehow ingratiate oneself into the white man's good graces. Ellison's story is all about the degradations to which blacks were routinely subjected at the hands of whites, and about that misguided belief against which the story's narrator's father had been warned by his dying grandfather. On his deathbed, the grandfather had warned the narrator's father:

"Son, after I'm gone I want you to keep up the good fight. I never told you, but our life is a war and I have been a traitor all my born days, a spy in the enemy's country ever since I give up my gun back in the Reconstruction. Live with your head in the lion's mouth."

What the grandfather was saying was that any attempt at placating whites through attempts at assimilation into white culture would not only fail, but would further degrade the spirit of the blacks who feigned such desires. A more confrontational style that may lack indications of good breeding yet which preserved black pride was the more rational course to pursue.

The narrator of Ellison's story has not abided his grandfather's warning; on the contrary, he has pursued the road of least resistance in the hopes of being accepted by whites, even at the expense of faith and pride in his own ethnicity. The narrator, however, is not unaware of the paradoxical nature of his character. As the following passage reveals, he is fully cognizant of the questionable nature of the path he has heretofore followed:

"I was praised by the most lily-white men in town. I was considered an example of desirable conduct-just as my grandfather had been. And what puzzled me was that the old man had defined it as treachery. When I was praised for my conduct I felt a guilt that in some way I was doing something that was really against the wishes of the white folks, that if they had understood they would have desired me to act just the opposite, that I should have been sulky and mean, and that that really would have been what they wanted, even though they were fooled and thought they wanted me to act as I did. It made me afraid that some day they would look upon me as a traitor and I would be lost. Still I was more afraid to act any other way because they didn't like that at all."

This lengthy passage from Battle Royal illuminates the moral and emotional quandary in which many blacks found themselves. Those who tried to assimilate were doomed to fail. The white establishment would not have it any other way. The battle that awaits, however, the "Battle Royal," will expose the nature of the whites who assume an intellectual, physical and moral superiority over blacks that is belied by their actual conduct. And, the narrator plays right into the whites' collective hands, presuming to his own level of superiority over other, less educated and erudite blacks. As he relates in the build-up to the start of the battle, a battle that will precede the narrator's address before the assembled elites of white society:

"I had some misgivings over the battle royal, by the way. Not from a distaste for fighting but because I didn't care too much for the other fellows who were to take part. . .No one could mistake their toughness. And besides, I suspected that fighting a battle royal might detract from the dignity of my speech. In those pre-invisible days I visualized myself as a potential Booker T. Washington. But the other fellows didn't care too much for me either, and there were nine of them. I felt superior to them in my way."

Against this concentration of poor, uneducated blacks is arrayed the cream of white society. "They were all there-bankers, lawyers, judges, doctors, fire chiefs, teachers, merchants," the narrator notes, while further describing these white elites as drunken buffoons compelled to denigrate these black men for their own amusement. It is the blindfolds placed on the heads of the blacks, however, that proves something of an equalizer. The blindfolds eliminate the distinctions between the narrator and the other blacks. As he describes the sensation of being deprived of his sight, "now I felt a sudden fit of blind terror. I was unused to darkness, it was as though I had suddenly found myself in a dark room filled with poisonous cottonmouths."

It is during the scene in which the blacks are humiliated by being presented with the appearance of a beautiful, blonde-haired white woman writhing naked before them--an exercise in the most basest of human degradation--that the narrator witnesses most sharply the depths to which blacks have descended in this post-abolition society. The sight of one of the scantily-clad black men trying futilely to conceal his natural and anticipated response to the woman's appearance is designed to further illuminate the irony in the white elite's sense of values and ideas of entertainment.

And then comes the Battle Royal, the denigrating, brutal subjugation of blacks at each other's hand for the entertainment of those who assume themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their "entertainers." After the narrator is beaten by Tatlock, the rug is rolled out, on which, the blacks are led to believe, are coins and other forms of wealth. Note the narrator's description of the scene:

How would you prepare young readers for the historical nature of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry in a classroom or related group setting? What age...

Although the novel Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry deals with difficult details of segregation and racial prejudice, it is designed for middle grades students to read.

This novel seeks to introduce younger students to difficult concepts. Before they read a more complex and detailed description of the realities of racism, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, this book introduces them a little more gently to concepts of racism, discrimination, and poverty.

The book addresses important historical concepts likes sharecropping and segregation. There are roving bands of white bandits that target innocent black men. There are also more minor, daily examples of institutionalized racism, such as the used textbooks given to the "negro" school once they are no longer useable for whites, and the whites-only bus deliberately splashing the Logans as they walk to school.

In an age-appropriate manner, this book allows children to learn about and discuss such issues. The protagonist of the book is a middle-grades girl, most of the characters are children, and the events of the book describe the children’s experiences. This is a perfect way for teachers to open up discussions, such as asking kids how they would feel in the protagonist's situation. For example, Cassie refuses to move off a sidewalk for a white girl and is pushed aside by the girl’s father.

I did not feel like messing with Lillian Jean. I had other things on my mind. “Okay,” I said, starting past, “I’m sorry.” 

Lillian Jean sidestepped in front of me. “That ain’t enough. Get down in the road.” (Ch. 5) 

Cassie is upset at her grandmother for not intervening, but she realizes later that she was only trying to protect Cassie from further harassment by the white family. In those days, it was acceptable for a black girl to be waited on last in a store, and to be expected to move out of the way for a white girl.

Although the book is designed for children, it does not pull any punches. There is serious violence, and the N-word is used. Everything is in historical context, but it should be preceded by a discussion and appropriate background so that kids understand and appreciate what they are reading.  Middle grades students should not really read the book without discussion of some sort, because they could possibly be frightened, confused, or angered by what they read.

A discussion of the historical realities of the period, and the events leading up to them, is crucial. For example, you should explain how slavery influenced sharecropping, and why it was so rare for the Logans to own land. Background on Jim Crow laws and segregation would also be useful, especially with regard to schools. Finally, a reading of this book should also include background on the Great Depression in general, and then the Civil Rights movement.

Why there is current in a neutral conductor, but no voltage?

Well, actually, when we say that the voltage at a point X is equal to a certain value, what we're really doing is measuring the voltage difference between this point X and an implicit point. In our case, this implicit point is called the ground - in the electrical grid, neutral is the ground by our choice, with voltage equal to 0.

Now, ignoring our arbitrary choices and assuming that our neutral wire is a normal conductor, then if you measure the voltage between two different points in this neutral conductor, which has some current flowing in it, then you will in fact find a small difference!

In most cases, this voltage difference is so small that it can be ignored for most practical uses. If this voltage happens to be big, then your neutral conductor is not doing its job.

An interesting fact is that this is true only because our neutral conductor is assumed to be a normal conductor and not a superconductor. If that were the case, then you could have current flowing in it, but no voltage difference between any two points in it! In other worlds, current can keep on existing when you have no resistances in your conductor, even when the voltage difference is 0 anywhere on it! Voltage would be necessary to keep the current flowing only when you have an internal resistance.

In The Canterville Ghost, how are the antics of the ghost amusing as well as pathetic?

While the question of whether or not the Ghost's antics are amusing is in the eye of the beholder, they are clearly designed for comic as well as pathetic effect. In other words, Wilde wants the comedy of his story to lie in more than just the laughs produced by the way the Otis family is oblivious to how they are "supposed" to respond to an English ghost haunting an ancestral home. We know Wilde is playing for laughs because he is so "over-the-top" in his descriptions of the stereotypical ways the ghost tries to frighten the family. For example, he provides the following long description of the Ghost's attempt to get revenge on the Otis boys:

Then, as their beds were quite close to each other, [the Ghost meant] to stand between them in the form of a green, icy-cold corpse, till they became paralyzed with fear, and finally, to throw off the winding-sheet, and crawl round the room, with white, bleached bones and one rolling eyeball, in the character of "Dumb Daniel, or the Suicide's Skeleton," a rôle in which he had on more than one occasion produced a great effect, and which he considered quite equal to his famous part of "Martin the Maniac, or the Masked Mystery."

This quote is meant to do more than show that the ghost is pathetic in his failure to frighten the Americans. Wilde is quite broadly going for the gag in this parody of what you might find in a "haunted house."

To what extent is Blanche portrayed as unstable? To what extent is she misunderstood?

Though the first question you asks takes a more critical look at Blanche and the latter a more compassionate perspective, both "unstable" and "misunderstood" are accurate words to describe her character.

When we first meet Blanche, her lies to Stella and Stanley are clearly just falsehoods she tells intentionally to keep up appearances. She knows that she needs to put on an act to appear delicate, prudish, and a bit stuck-up in order to attract the right type of man. She still sees herself as a Southern belle who can win stability through a good marriage and she knows she will never win the type of husband she is looking for (the chivalrous but long-lost Shep Huntleigh as an example) without these specific qualities. However, it is just these qualities that drive Stanley (and many audiences) away from Blanche, as her snobbish airs and affected lies increase our irritation and disdain for her. She can be said to be misunderstood because she is surviving in the best way she knows how, regardless of how much it turns people against her. In fact, Blanche has always been misunderstood, as Stella says to Stanley:

"You didn’t know Blanche as a girl. Nobody, nobody was tender and trusting as she was. But people like you abused her, and forced her to change.”

In this way, Blanche can be seen as the misunderstood victim of circumstance.

It is also true, however, that Blanche is unstable. Still caught up in the illusion of the antebellum South, displaced in both place and time, her approach to rescuing herself and Stella is completely off. This problem, paired with the way her past haunts her, causes her to slowly lose her sense of what is reality and what is fantasy. In fact, it seems she prefers the fantasy. After all, Belle Reve, the name of the family's plantation, names "beautiful dream" in French. Additionally, Blanche tells Mitch:

"I don’t want realism, I want magic! [..] Yes, yes, magic! I try to give that to people. I misrepresent things to them. I don’t tell the truth, I tell what ought to be truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it!”

Pair this declaration with the other suggestions of Blanche's instability – the haunting polka music and gunshot that only she can hear, the shadows on the wall, the echoing voices – and it's clear that even though it seems that she is just trying to make the world a better place, she is also haunted by the deaths of her family and husband, and of the choices and acts she has engaged in to survive.

How do you identify a helping verb in a sentence?

Helping verbs do just as their name suggests, they help the main verb in a sentence by expanding upon the meaning.  When combined with the main verb they make up a verb phrase.  They add detail to the use of time in a sentence and make a sentence more complex.  They are often used in the progressive and perfect tenses.  They can also add other forms of meaning to a sentence such as probability, potential, expectations, direction, obligation, and permission.  In linguistic terms they are known as 'auxiliary' verbs.

Since these verbs 'help' give meaning, they are not the main action of the sentence.  In other words, if you were to take away a helper verb, the principal action verb (main verb) would remain.  If you were to take away the principal verb, leaving only the helper verb - the sentence would lose its meaning.  Thus a good question to use to figure out the helper verb is "If I take out this verb, will it still have a main action?  Will it still have the same meaning?"  

For example, with the sentence "I have drank three coffees today", if you take out the verb "have", you still have the main point of the sentence which has to do with drinking.  If you take out "drank" you don't know what the sentence is trying to say.  Does it refer to buying coffee?  Making coffee? It is unclear without the main verb.  Another example is "Who has listened to the new song?".  If you take out "has" you still get the meaning of the sentence, but if you take out "listened" the meaning is lost. 

Some examples of helper verbs include: be, are, am, were, has, have, may, can could, should, must, will, would.   

In Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, where do you see a struggle for power on pages 361-369?

It is in these pages that Percy finally comes to understand the final part of the oracle’s prophecy: that he will “betrayed by one who calls [him] a friend.” Once Luke reveals his true self to Percy when he says that “‘“Western civilization” is a disease [….]. The only way to stop it is to burn it to the ground, start over with something more honest.’” He discloses that he’s been working with Kronos to start a war between the Olympians so that they will destroy themselves and make way for Kronos to regain the power he lost at their hands so many years before. Further, Luke gets angry when Percy insists that he’s being used by Kronos because Luke resents the implication that he is powerless. Therefore, while Kronos is struggling for power for himself; there’s also a struggle for power happening between Luke and Percy. They are the only heroes to ever return from a quest, and Luke seems to begrudge Percy his success because it thwarted Kronos’s plan. He was supposed to die in the Underworld, and, instead, he made it back, restored the bolt to Zeus, and prevented a gods’ war. Luke says that only the strongest of humans will be allowed to remain, and he doesn’t consider Percy to be one of these. Luke conjures up a terrible scorpion to kill Percy in order to get rid of him, and he almost succeeds, certainly fulfilling the prophecy about betrayal.

What were the major themes of the period known as the Pax Romana?

The Pax Romana is literally translated as the Roman Peace, so it would stand to reason that peace was a major theme during the time period. Peace was celebrated in art and propaganda during the Pax Romana and elaborate ceremonies were commissioned by the Senate to celebrate it. Defensive walls were constructed during this period on the frontiers of the Roman Empire to prevent border incursions and warfare. Peace was viewed as something to be celebrated and not as a weakness.

Another important theme was the centralization of power. The emperor was afforded unprecedented political power during the Pax Romana. An attempt was made to deify the emperors which would further solidify their political positions. If the emperor were viewed as divine by his subjects, his decisions would not be questioned and insurrection would become less likely.

Infrastructure development was another theme during the Pax Romana. Thousands of miles of the best roads in the world were built during this era. The roads connected a vast trade and communication network that placed Rome at the center of the web. The Romans also built public buildings that have survived to the modern era. The Colosseum and Pantheon are two examples of superior construction during this period. The production of aqueducts during the Pax Romana represented a significant advancement in engineering and construction and how the public good could be served by peace.

Who is Duncan referring to in his speech in Act I, Scene 4, before Macbeth, Banquo, Ross, and Angus enter?

Just before Macbeth, Banquo, Ross, and Angus enter in Act I, Scene 4 of Macbeth, King Duncan says:

There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face.
He was a gentleman on whom I built
An absolute trust.

Duncan is referring to the Thane of Cawdor who has just been executed for high treason. As Scene 4 opens, Duncan asks his son Malcolm:

Is execution done on Cawdor? Are not
Those in commission yet returned?

Malcolm informs his father that Cawdor is dead and relates what he has heard about how Cawdor died bravely and begged Duncan's pardon for his treachery.

It is ironic that Macbeth enters just at the point where Duncan says that there is no way of reading a person's mind from his facial features or facial expressions. Macbeth is already the new Thane of Cawdor, and he is thinking of assassinating Duncan in order to replace him as king of Scotland. The ensuing conversation between Duncan and Macbeth is understood by the audience as requiring Macbeth to hide his true thoughts, feelings and intentions. When Duncan announces that he is naming his son Malcolm the Prince of Cumberland, Macbeth must continue to hide behind a rigid mask, but he has a strong internal reaction to this news because it makes Malcolm the official heir apparent to the throne. Macbeth tells himself in an aside to keep the truth hidden:

Stars, hide your fires;
Let not light see my black and deep desires.
The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be
Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see.

Only the audience knows what is going on inside Macbeth. He is learning to be treacherous. It is almost as if he has inherited the duplicitous nature of Cawdor along with his title.

Macbeth would have a hard time becoming king if he killed Duncan but left Malcolm alive. Then there was Donalbain, the younger son, who would seem to be the natural successor to the throne if Malcolm were eliminated. Shakespeare did not know how to deal with this problem. He had enough to think about in staging the bloody assassination of Duncan. It really looks as if Shakespeare was only thinking one scene ahead at a time. He didn't know what Macbeth was going to do about Malcolm and Duncan. Maybe Macbeth would murder all three in their beds that night. Shakespeare was counting on his own genius to handle the problem with the boys after Macbeth and his wife had disposed of their father. The final solution was to have Malcolm and Donalbain decide to flee for their lives, Malcolm to England and Donalbain to Ireland. In Act II, Scene 3, Malcolm tells his brother:

This murderous shaft that's shot
Hath not yet lighted, and our safest way
Is to avoid the aim. Therefore to horse;
And let us not be dainty of leave-taking,
But shift away. There's warrant in that theft
Which steals itself when there's no mercy left.

Their precipitous flight enabled Macbeth to claim that Malcolm and Donalbain had paid Duncan's two attendants to murder their father in his sleep, and Macbeth had disposed of the grooms to prevent them from telling a different story.

Why do scientists think the fossil record is incomplete?

The incompleteness of the fossil record is a result of the unusual conditions necessary to make a fossil. Normally when an animal or plant dies, decay eliminates the remains entirely. Soft materials decay by bacterial and fungal action while harder materials like bone and enamel may require additional action of weathering, but by and large most organisms decay completely.

Once in awhile, though, a dead animal or plant is prevented from decomposing by some aspect in the environment. For instance, if a tree falls in a peat bog, the low oxygen concentration of the bog will prevent the microbial action that would lead to decay. This first stage of fossilization, protection from the environment and biota that might degrade the body, is reasonably rare just on its own. Most animals are killed and eaten by other animals, not sealed under a protective layer of thick mud when they die. Simple protection is enough to preserve a trace fossil (footprints, etc) for millions of years if mud hardens into sedimentary rock. Body fossils (bones) generally only survive tens or hundreds of thousands of years if all they have is this level of protection.  

For long-term preservation of body fossils, mineralization is necessary, and there are several kinds. Most require the fossil to be exposed to ground water with a high concentration of minerals. The minerals precipitate out in the empty spaces of the bones, and as the bones degrade, the minerals fill the voids and form hard crystals. This is rare on its own, and only a fraction of the protected body fossils will mineralize.

Finally the third chance event that must take place is that the fossil must be found and recognized. Most of the bones that have ever fossilized have been broken into chips by time and natural erosion. For those that have not been ground to powder, it almost always takes an expert to recognize them in the field.

That is why the fossil record has gaps. While every ancient animal or homonid must have died, only a small fraction were protected from decay, a smaller fraction yet had their bones mineralized, and only a tiny fraction has been dug up and classified by a paleontologist. As such, the majority of ancient species have never been found in the fossil record and classified.

Calpurnia comes into the courtroom to hand a note to Atticus. What does the note say?

Calpurnia comes to the courthouse with a note from Aunt Alexandra to let Atticus know that Scout and Jem are missing, and she can’t find them.  This happens at the conclusion of Atticus’ closing arguments in the trial. Ironically, Scout and Jem have watched the entire trial from the Negro section of the balcony with Reverend Sykes. The trial has affected Jem and Scout (and Dill) tremendously as they watched the testimony of Mayella Ewell, Bob Ewell, and Tom Robinson unfold.  Jem is sure Atticus will win the case.  When the jury goes into deliberation, Atticus sends Jem and Scout home with Calpurnia but later agrees to let them see the verdict since he can’t hide the outcome from them anyway.  Aunt Alexandra isn’t happy about the kids being at the courthouse, but it is a life-changing lesson for Jem and Scout to experience how the prejudice and racist views of white society affects an innocent man’s life.  

`u = , v = ` Find the projection of u onto v.

The projection of vector u onto v can be evaluated using the following formula, such that:

`proj_v (u) = ((u*v)/|v|)*v`

First, evaluate the product of the vectors `u*v` , such that:

`u*v = 2*6 + 2*1`

`u*v = 12 + 2`

`u*v = 14`

You need to evaluate the magnitude of support vector v:

`|v| = sqrt(6^2+1^2)`

`|v| = sqrt 37`

`proj_v (u) = (14/(sqrt37))*<6,1> => proj_v (u) = <84/(sqrt37),14/(sqrt37)>`

Hence, evaluating the projection of vector u onto v yields `proj_v (u) = <84/(sqrt37),14/(sqrt37)>``.`

How were alliances an important cause of World War One?

Alliances were an important cause of World War I because they transformed what was a regional crisis in the Balkans into a broader European war. This was because the major powers were enmeshed in a complex system of alliances that obliged them to enter the conflict. When a Bosnian Serb group known as the Black Hand assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in the summer of 1914, Austria-Hungary, with the support of Germany, held the nation of Serbia itself accountable. They issued an ultimatum to the Serbs that that nation could not accept, and when they declined, they declared war. The problem was that Serbia had an alliance with Russia, who mobilized its troops against Austria-Hungary in response. This led Germany to honor its commitment to the Austrians by declaring war against Russia. 

Russia, in the meantime, had an alliance with France that caused the French to enter the war. Germany, faced with the challenge of fighting a two-front war, invaded France, attacking Belgium in the process. The attack on Belgium triggered a treaty between that nation and Great Britain, who declared war on the Germans. So alliance systems set in motion a chain of events that culminated with a continent-wide war beginning in the summer of 1914. Other nations, including the Ottoman Empire and later the United States, would join the fray later. 

List 3 pieces of information we learn from Mr Anagnos' farewell conversation with Annie.

Mr. Anagnos speaks with Annie Sullivan before she leaves to become Helen Keller's teacher.  She had been at the Perkins Institution since she was a girl.

- Mr. Anagnos explains to Annie what her situation will be like as a governess to a deaf and blind child with no formal education.  He tells her that Helen might not be teachable and that he does not "expect [her] to work miracles."

- Mr. Anagnos reminds Annie of where she came from.  He tells her that she "could not spell [her] name" when she first arrived.  He notes that she was stubborn and independent.  He suggests that she leave behind her past, including painful memories of the Tewksbury Almshouse and the death of her brother.  

- Mr. Anagnos gives Annie a piece of advice, which is that she should be humble.  He reminds her that she did not have other offers from employment, and that the Perkins school prepared her to be a teacher.

In Paul's Case, What fantasy does he have as the orchestra warms up and people take their seats, and what spoils his fantasy? Why?

Paul fantasizes about a world of beauty and elegance.  As the orchestra warms up, he endulges in the sights and sounds of the concert hall:

When the symphony began Paul sank into one of the rear seats with a long sigh of relief, and lost himself as he had done before the Rico. It was not that symphonies, as such, meant anything in particular to Paul, but the first sigh of the instruments seemed to free some hilarious spirit within him; something that struggled there like the Genius in the bottle found by the Arab fisherman. He felt a sudden zest of life; the lights danced before his eyes and the concert hall blazed into unimaginable splendour.

It's important to note that music itself had no charm for Paul; what he loves is the grand scene, the beautiful clothes, the spectacle of the concert. He is an artist in his own way -- but his art lies not in painting or music, but simply in looking. He is a master appreciator.

That's why when his English teacher shows up at the concert, and Paul has to seat her, it punctures his fantasy a bit. Earlier in the story, we learn of an episode Paul had with this teacher:

Once, when he had been making a synopsis of a paragraph at the blackboard, his English teacher had stepped to his side and attempted to guide his hand. Paul had started back with a shudder, and thrust his hands violently behind him. The astonished woman could scarcely have been more hurt and embarrassed had he struck at her. The insult was so involuntary and definitely personal as to be unforgettable.

Just as in the case of Paul's revulsion at his teacher's touch, the teacher's presence in the concert hall is another invasion of his personal space. They are both embarrassed when they recognize each other, but Paul does seat her, thinking to himself that she must have been given the tickets; looking at her clothes, he thinks that she "must be a fool to sit downstairs in such togs." It is as if he teacher's presence is a flaw, a mistake, a element of vulgarity in an otherwise elegant picture.

How do you describe how someone showed bravery or courage in "Rikki-tikki-tavi" using the words demonstrate, exhibit, display, or illustrate?

Rikki showed courage in this story by facing down two cobras (and little Karait) in order to protect his family. All of the words that you have provided are synonyms. This means that they are similar enough that they could probably be used interchangeably.

Let’s take the first word, “demonstrate.” The first time Rikki showed bravery was by the way he reacted to being washed away and finding himself in a new place with the British family. They rescued him and invited him into their home, and he reacted with curiosity instead of fear.

He spent all that day roaming over the house. … At nightfall he ran into Teddy's nursery to watch how kerosene-lamps were lighted, and when Teddy went to bed Rikki-tikki climbed up too; but he was a restless companion, because he had to get up and attend to every noise all through the night, and find out what made it.

Using the word “demonstrate” you could write a sentence like this.

Rikki-tikki demonstrated courage by moving in with the family and exploring their house.

The next word is “exhibit.” It means “to show.” Rikki showed bravery by how he reacted to Nag and Nagaina, the cobras.

He was afraid for the minute; but it is impossible for a mongoose to stay frightened for any length of time, and though Rikki-tikki had never met a live cobra before, his mother had fed him on dead ones, and he knew that all a grown mongoose's business in life was to fight and eat snakes.

You could write a sentence about this incident using the word “exhibit.”

Rikki-tikki exhibited courage by standing up to Nag and not allowing Nagaina to trick him.

Since the word “display” is similar to “exhibit,” you could describe Rikki’s fight with Nag.

Rikki-tikki displayed courage when he searched for Nag and killed him before he could target the family.

Finally, that leaves “illustrate.” This word also means “to show.”

Rikki-tikki illustrated courage when he used Nagaina’s eggs against her and followed her into her hole.

In the end, Rikki-tikki defeated all three snakes, and kept the garden free from snakes from thereon.

What three clues are the most important in the plot of "The Adventure of the Speckled Band? Explain the significance of each.

"The Adventure of the Speckled Band" is an example of a so-called "locked-room murder mystery." The biggest question is: "How could Julia Stoner have been murdered in her bedroom with her door locked and the window tightly shuttered?" The prototype for this story was probably Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," in which the question was how two women could have been murdered in a room in which their door and windows were tightly shut. The door or one of the windows might have been open when the murderer entered, but how could he exit and leave door and windows locked from the inside? 

Holmes is trying save his client Helen Stoner from being murdered, but this automatically involves trying to find out how her sister was murdered two years earlier in the same room with the door locked and shutters bolted. The three most important clues have to be found inside that room. They are the ventilator between Helen's and her stepfather's rooms, the dummy bell-rope, and the fact that the bed is held in one place by being clamped to the floor. After the mystery has been solved and Dr. Roylott is dead, Holmes explains to Watson what he deduced from these three clues.

"My attention was speedily drawn, as I have already remarked to you, to this ventilator, and to the bell-rope which hung down to the bed. The discovery that this was a dummy, and that the bed was clamped to the floor, instantly gave rise to the suspicion that the rope was there as a bridge for something passing through the hole and coming to the bed. The idea of a snake instantly occurred to me, and when I coupled it with my knowledge that the doctor was furnished with a supply of creatures from India, I felt that I was probably on the right track." 

Note that this is the first time the word "snake" is used in the story. The author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, knew that the word could give away his whole plot if he used it earlier. The reader would guess that a snake could get into the locked room even if it were impenetrable by a human murderer. That is why the term "speckled band" is used in the text and even in the title up to the point where the trick has been exposed. Holmes' deductions are put to the proof when he and Watson spend the night in Helen's room and the snake is plainly seen by both men at around three o'clock in the morning.

It would seem that Julia Stoner must have seen the snake after she had been bitten two years ago. The reason she doesn't call it a snake but a "speckled band" is that she is dying from the fast-acting venom and is nearly in a coma already. When Helen is describing that night to Holmes at Baker Street early that morning, she tells him her sister's last words:

"'Oh, my God! Helen! It was the band! The speckled band!’ There was something else which she would fain have said, and she stabbed with her finger into the air in the direction of the doctor's room, but a fresh convulsion seized her and choked her words."

Julia was trying to tell Helen that she had been bitten by a snake and to indicate that their stepfather was responsible. But Helen still doesn't understand this at the time of her early-morning interview with Holmes. When he asks her what she thinks her sister meant, she tells him:

“Sometimes I have thought that it was merely the wild talk of delirium, sometimes that it may have referred to some band of people, perhaps to these very gipsies in the plantation. I do not know whether the spotted handkerchiefs which so many of them wear over their heads might have suggested the strange adjective which she used.”

The author is obviously trying to preserve his mystery until the climax, when Holmes lights a candle and whips the snake with his cane, driving it back up the dummy bell-rope and through the ventilator, where it bites Dr. Roylott and kills him.

What is the difference between the Greasers and the Socs in The Outsiders?

There are many differences between the lifestyles of the Greasers and Socs. The Socs are privileged individuals that come from affluent families. They do not lack material goods and value their possessions. Cherry explains to Ponyboy that Socs are superficial and don't mean half of the things they say. Socs are more worried about keeping up with their physical appearances and portraying themselves as cool individuals. Randy gives Ponyboy insight into the family life of a typical Soc. Soc parents typically do not blame their children for their mistakes and do not set boundaries. This is why many Socs get away with committing crimes and are able to have drunken parties. Socs treat other people with contempt, especially if individuals are of a lower social class. Their self-entitled attitude, affinity for partying, and aggressive behavior are the reasons why the Greasers view them with disdain. Dally also mentions that the police favor Socs and are quick to convict Greasers of similar crimes. Despite their outward appearance, Socs suffer inwardly. They have insincere relationships with their peers, and their families lack the communication necessary for positive bonds to develop.

The Greasers differ from the Socs in many ways. Unlike the affluent Socs, the Greasers are from a lower social class and live in rough neighborhoods. Greasers' parents do not give them material items and fight with their children often. The Greasers wear blue jeans, white tee-shirts, and leather jackets, while the Socs were polos and slacks. Greasers have a bad reputation and have the appearance of troublemakers. Greasers are viewed with disdain by teachers and community members, unlike the Socs who have a good reputation. Although they have terrible family lives, they have sincere relationships with their peers. Unlike the Socs, the Greasers are real with each other and understand one another on a personal level. What they lack in material wealth, they have in personal relationships.

How do the townspeople feel about making changes to the lottery?

It is hard to tell how most of the townspeople feel about making changes to the annual lottery. The only person who expresses a decisive opinion is Old Man Warner, who wants everybody to hear him defend this traditional event. Mr. and Mrs. Adams both rather timidly show they might be thinking their town should do what other towns are doing.

"They do say," Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, "that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery."

"Some places have already quit lotteries." Mrs. Adams said.

Old Man Warner snorted. "Pack of crazy fools," he said. "Listening to the young folks, nothing's good enough for them. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live hat way for a while. Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' First thing you know, we'd all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There's always been a lottery," he added petulantly. "Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody."

Most people seem afraid to express any opinion about the lottery. They just go along with it year after year and hope that their family will not get chosen in the first drawing or that they themselves will not get chosen in the second. When the Hutchinson household gets selected in the first drawing, one young girl is heard above the sudden silence:

A girl whispered, "I hope it's not Nancy," and the sound of the whisper reached the edges of the crowd.

The young people care nothing about this ceremony. They don't understand it. But they are intimidated by their parents and all the other older people. If the lottery is ever to change it will have to be the young people who change it. That is what Old Man Warner is fearing when he says: "Listening to the young folks." This girl's whispering, "I hope it's not Nancy" is an indication of a growing feeling of resistance, an emergence of "felt values" of pity and affection over the blind superstition expressed vociferously and authoritatively by Old Man Warner without a challenge.

The condition of the black box symbolizes the general feelings about the lottery itself.

Every year, after the lottery, Mr. Summers began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject was allowed to fade off without anything's being done. The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained.

There is a very good reason why the people do not want a new black box and why they do not want to pay any money to have one built. If they were to acquire a new black box it would be tantamount to saying that they all support the lottery and expect it to continue for as long as the old box lasted. Instead, they are all willing to watch the old black box deteriorate and would probably be happy to see it crumble into kindling.

If Old Man Warner is an extreme example of the pro-lottery sentiment, then Tessie Hutchinson can be considered an extreme example of the anti-lottery sentiment. Once she has been selected as this year's victim, she sees clearly what an ignorant, unnecessary, cruel, and unjust affair this lottery really is. 

"Listen, everybody," Mrs. Hutchinson was saying to the people around her.

But nobody is listening to her. She is no longer a member of the community but an outsider, a non-person.

"It isn't fair, it isn't right," Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.

It is only Tessie who expresses the truth about the lottery in plain words. It isn't fair. It isn't right. Perhaps most of the people, except for that pigheaded Old Man Warner, know it isn't fair, it isn't right. But something--superstition, tradition, fear of public opinion, mob psychology, plain ignorance, or whatever--keeps them participating and prevents them from expressing their feelings in words.

What is Rikki-tikki's great war in "Rikki-tikki-tavi"?

Rikki’s great war was the war against the cobras.

Rikki-tikki’s war was against the pair of cobras, Nag and Nagaina.  As a mongoose, it was his job to get rid of the snakes in the yard, as every good house-mongoose does.

This is the story of the great war that Rikki-tikki-tavi fought single-handed, through the bath-rooms of the big bungalow in Segowlee cantonment. Darzee, the tailor-bird, helped him, and Chuchundra, the musk-rat, who never comes out into the middle of the floor, but always creeps round by the wall, gave him advice; but Rikki-tikki did the real fighting.

Chuchundra helped him by telling him to listen for the snakes.  Darzee helped him by distracting the snakes and serving as a decoy, and by warning Rikki off.  However, Rikki was the only one who was able to kill the snakes.

Rikki washed into the garden and found himself in the care of a British family staying in the Indian bungalow.  He wanted to stay because the house was interesting, the people fed him, and it is a mongoose’s duty to watch out for people.

Chuchundra is not much help. He is too afraid to do anything.  He tells Rikki he should have talked to Chua, the rat, instead.  However, in talking to him Rikki hears a snake and knows that it is Nag or Nagaina. 

Darzee turned out to be very useful. He was a smart bird, and warned Rikki when Nag was there.

“Behind you! Look behind you!'' sang Darzee.

Rikki-tikki knew better than to waste time in staring. He jumped up in the air as high as he could go, and just under him whizzed by the head of Nagaina, Nag's wicked wife. 

Darzee’s wife also pretended to have a broken wing to distract Nagaina so that Rikki could go kill all of her eggs.  Rikki had two reasons for doing this. He wanted to eliminate the other cobras, and he wanted to have leverage to use against Nagaina.

Rikki manages to kill both cobras and the little snake, Karait.  Since he kills all of the cobra babies too, the people are safe in the garden.  If another snake comes, Rikki will get that one too.

Describe the strange town at the mouth of the Forest River, in The Hobbit.

The town at the end of the Forest River is called Lake-town. Lake-town, also known as Esgaroth, was created by the men from the city of Dale after it was destroyed by Smaug when he came for the treasure in the Lonely Mountain. It was built on the Long Lake, the waters of which were used as a defense for the town. The men of Lake-town are ruled over by the Master. They trade with Thranduil, the Elf-king of the Woodland Realm in Mirkwood; the barrels that hold the wine the Elves drink are what was used by Bilbo and the Dwarves to escape Thranduil's palace. Lake-town took in Bilbo and the Dwarves before they journeyed to the Lonely Mountain on their quest, though it was not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because they expected Thorin and co. to give them a reward of treasure for their troubles. They were one of the armies in the Battle of Five Armies that took place at the end of The Hobbit, on the side of the Dwarves and Elves, against the Orcs and Wargs.

Do Edgar Allan Poe's stories provide any information about his personal life?

While it is tempting to want to read many of Poe's works as being about his own personal life, or even to assume they are autobiographical, generally this is known to be untrue.

According to the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore,

“One of the principal sources of the popular image of Poe is the long-standing notion, encouraged by Poe himself, that his poems and especially his stories are autobiographical documents in which we can identify his narrators and characters as versions of Poe himself speaking in what appears to be his authentic voice."

Yet we also know that he never did most of the things his characters did. He is not re-telling real events, a hallmark of autobiographical pieces.

The closest we get to personal information about the author is moods or feelings. It seems that Poe used his own life as inspiration for the many dark stories and poems he wrote, as he, too, experienced a lot of tragedy in his own life. According to Killis Campbell, an autobiographer of Poe, we see this in "Annabel Lee." Poe uses this poem to portray his own grief over the loss of his young wife. Yet it is only mood and emotion here that bear any resemblance to the author's own life. His wife, obviously, did not live in a castle by the sea, for example.

How did the telegraph effect the economy?

The telegraph helped to integrate the economy, forging a national economic system. Along with its "sister" invention in transportation, the locomotive, it enabled long-distance transactions to take place. For example, merchants in New York City could be almost instantly apprised of cotton prices in New Orleans markets, and vice versa. Planters in the South could order farm implements and other capital goods from manufacturers in the North, and receive lines of credit from bankers far distant from home. Historian Daniel Walker Howe cites the invention of the telegraph as part of a "communications revolution" that occurred in the thirty years or so before the Civil War. In his book What Hath God Wrought (named after the first words transmitted over the telegraph by Samuel Morse, its inventor) Howe sees the telegraph and the railroads as essential to the development of a market economy in the United States. "The electric telegraph," Howe writes, "helped integrate [the] continental empire." The telegraph made territorial expansion, so important to economic expansion, possible by linking distant regions. It also facilitated rapid communication between Europe and the United States after the first transatlantic cables were laid just before the Civil War. Before the telegraph, news and other information could only travel as fast as a horse or a ship. The telegraph connected the world in ways unimaginable before its invention.

How does Montresor get Fortunato to come to his palazzo?

I said to him—“My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met. How remarkably well you are looking to-day. But I have received a pipe of what passes for Amontillado, and I have my doubts.”

“How?” said he. “Amontillado, A pipe? Impossible! And in the middle of the carnival!”

“I have my doubts,” I replied; “and I was silly enough to pay the full Amontillado price without consulting you in the matter. You were not to be found, and I was fearful of losing a bargain....As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchesi. If any one has a critical turn it is he. He will tell me—”

Both men refer to the cask as a "pipe," which is a barrel containing 126 gallons, or some 500 quart bottles. Neither Montresor nor Fortunato would want that much sherry for private consumption. The "bargain" in this purely fictitious Amontillado is the bait in the trap.

Montresor pretends to be in a hurry, which is why he uses the word "But," as if to say, "But I can't stop to talk now because I am in a hurry." Why should he be in a hurry to get someone to sample his wine? Because he got a bargain and would like to buy more before word gets out--if only he could be sure it is genuine. What interests Fortunato, as Montresor well knows, is the "bargain." Fortunato does not want to do Montresor a favor by sampling his wine. He is having a good time. He is inadequately dressed. He has a bad cold. But he can't put Montresor off for a day or even an hour because Montresor says he is on his way to Luchesi, who is obviously another connoisseur and another man who would be interested in a shipment of gourmet sherry being offered at a bargain. Fortunato does not need to sample Montresor's (nonexistent) wine. He could easily find a Spanish ship that brought the cargo of Amontillado to Venice. He could taste the wine aboard the ship and make a deal with the captain or purser immediately, thereby cutting Montresor out and committing another of his "thousand injuries." But if he doesn't go home with Montresor, Montresor will go to Luchesi; and then Fortunato would find himself competing with another buyer and  bidding the price up. Fortunato, as Montresor knows, since he knows his man, is already planning to taste the wine and say it is only ordinary sherry, whether it is or not. That would eliminate Montresor from the competition as well as Luchesi.

Montresor knows it is not enough to say he has a cask of Amontillado in his underground vaults. He has to make it a matter of urgency that it be sampled and judged by an expert that night. It is urgent because the wine is only a bargain as long as nobody else knows about it. And nobody else knows about it yet because everybody, including Fortunato, is drunk and neglecting business during the carnival.

The whole story is based on Montresor's problem of enticing Fortunato to his palazzo. Montresor manages to remain unnoticed because Fortunato is so boisterous and so conspicuous in his jester's costume and his cap with ringing bells. Montresor in his black cloak and black silk mask is like a shadow. No one will remember seeing him, although everyone will remember seeing Fortunato. Besides, Montresor has gone to great pains to make everyone, including Fortunato, believe that they are the very best of friends. When Fortunato disappears, it will be natural to suspect foul play--but no one will suspect Montresor. He has thought of everything. 

In Chapter 15, Thorin and the dwarves must decide what to do with the treasure. Should they try to keep the treasure for themselves, or should they...

This is an interesting ethical dilemma in what has been, up until this point, basically a fairy tale. While Tolkien's The Hobbit is certainly more of a fairy tale for adults than for children, it still sustained a whimsical tone up until this point, the point at which the dwarves face ethical choices that threaten to embroil them in a bloody war. Thorin chooses to hoard his wealth rather than share it, but I would have chosen to share it if I was in his position, as Thorin and the dwarves owe a great deal to the people of the lake.

Consider, for instance, that Thorin and his dwarves would not be alive if it weren't for the people living in Long Lake. After all, they welcomed the dwarves into Lake Town, nursed them back to health after their harrowing journeys, and provided them with food and supplies to tackle the Lonely Mountain stage of their adventure. Not only that, but one of the lake people, Bard, killed Smaug, thus enabling the dwarves to obtain their treasure in the first place. Now, I'm not saying that Thorin should have given up all his wealth; it is, after all, rightfully his by birth. However, due to the fact that he would never have gotten to the treasure without the help of the lake people, it makes sense to share a portion of it with his allies.

The elves, however, are a different story. As you may recall, the elves of Mirkwood imprisoned the dwarves for a large chunk of the novel. As such, Thorin's reluctance to share his treasure with them is understandable, and I believe that I would choose the same course of action if I were in his position.

What motivates someone to undertake an arduous journey like in The Odyssey?

Many things could motivate someone to undertake an arduous journey.  It could be loyalty, concern for another's well-being, and to procure help as it is for Telemachus.  However, it could also be a way to exact revenge if some particular resource or enemy is far away.  

In terms of resources, it could also be that one's home has run out of something and the only way to get more of it (oil, water, food, etc) is to travel somewhere else to secure aid.  An arduous journey could also be the result of strife or hardship at home.  We might think of political or religious refugees who leave home to escape persecution, war, even genocide should they stay in their homes.  There are a great many reasons that someone would undertake an arduous journey and they really all involve some ardent feeling of one type or another.

Who is the protagonist in the short story of "The Management of Grief"?

The protagonist in, and narrator of, Bhatari Mukherjee's short story "The Management of Grief" is Shaila Bhave, the widow of a Indian-Canadian man who was among the hundreds murdered--a death toll that also included Shaila's sons--when Sikh terrorists planted a bomb on the plane carrying him back to India from Canada. Based on the real-life bombing of Air India Flight 182 on June 23, 1985, Mukherjee's story is a reflection on the nature of orthodox Hindu culture and on the struggles among Indians to reconcile their own culture with an increasingly multicultural world. An early indication of Shaila's emotional state when Mukherjee's story begins is her comment regarding the loss of her husband and her "failure" to assure him of her love:

“I never once told him that I loved him,” I say. I was too much the well-brought-up woman. I was so well brought up I never felt comfortable calling my husband by his first name.

Shaila, surrounded by caring but sometimes inadvertently pretentious members of her community--a community bound by the size of the Indian expatriate community residing in Canada--struggles with the demands of her culture and the need to mourn while also being tasked to help bridge the cultural and language gap between the Indo-Canadian community and the Canadian authorities investigating the bombing while also attempting to connect with relatives of the dead. Among Shaila's mental burdens is the expectation that, despite her horrific personal losses, she will be available to help communicate with and even console the other relatives of the dead. Being presented with a Sikh couple, since the group responsible for the terrorist act were Sikh in faith (Sikhs are a distinct religious minority in India, practicing their own religion and, among very few, agitating for independence from India), Shaila is forced to walk that cultural and social tight-rope, building the metaphorical bridge through the notion of shared grief:

"We converse a bit in Hindi. They do not ask about the crash and I wonder if I should bring it up. If they think I am here merely as a translator, then they may feel insulted. There are thousands of Punjabi speakers, Sikhs, in Toronto to do a better job. And so I say to the old lady, 'I too have lost my sons and my husband, in the crash.' Her eyes immediately fill with tears. The man mutters a few words which sound like a blessing. 'God provides and God takes away,' he says. I want to say, but only men destroy and give back nothing. 'My boys and my husband are not coming back.' I say. 'We have to understand that'.”

Mukherjee's protagonist serves as a focal point for the myriad conflicts, emotional as well as physical, that separate peoples of a common heritage. Her grief at the loss of her husband, Vikram, and sons is enormous, but circumstances dictate that she serve a role for which she may not be well-suited. As with all such crises, time passes and participants move away. Life goes on. It is only some time later, when walking alone through a park near her apartment in Toronto, that Shaila finally allows herself to confront her loss and move on.

In the story "Marigolds", how does Lizabeth change, why does she change, how aware is she of her own surroundings and the wider world, and what...

In “Marigolds” Lizbeth has one major change.  She grows up and is no longer a child.   At the beginning of the story, she remarks on the innocence of the children.  She says,

“…. we were somewhat unaware of the world outside our community” (pg 1)

She knew that something was happening to her because she no longer enjoyed the childish games of the past.  She reflects that she had,  

“…a strange restlessness of body and of spirit, a feeling that something old and familiar was ending and something unknown and therefore terrifying was beginning.”  (pg 1)

When the group was bored and decided to annoy Miss Lottie, Lizbeth went along reluctantly, but , when challenged, she did get into the action and threw the first rock.  However, when it was all over with, she did not join in the celebration.

“Suddenly I was ashamed, and I did not like being ashamed.  The child in me sulked and said it was all in fun, but the woman in me flinched at the thought of the malicious attack that I had led. “(pg 2)

She could no longer throw those rocks in pure innocence and laugh.  She suddenly understood what she was doing to the old woman.  She felt responsible for the first time.  She had led the attack and was ashamed that she had done so. 

However, her big moment came when she overheard her mother and father talking that night.  Her father had always been the rock of the family.  He was fun to play with and fun to be around.  Her mother had been the soft, steady one who cared for the family.  Her innocence was secure in that relationship.  However, times had been hard, and her father had not been able to find a job.  She heard her mother cajoling her father because he was so upset with his lack of employment.  Her father was actually crying! 

“I did not know men ever cried. I covered my ears with my hands but could not cut off the sound of my father’s harsh, painful, despairing sobs.” (pg 4)

The innocence of her whole world fell apart.

“The world had lost its boundary lines.  My mother, who was small and soft, was now the strength of the family; my father, who was the rock on which the family had been built, was sobbing like the tiniest child.” (pg 4)

Her whole life suddenly crashed, and all she could think of doing was destroying something.  She ran out of the house, and destroyed Miss Lottie’s marigold patch. Miss Lottie caught her, and Lizbeth recounts

“….that was the moment when childhood faded and womanhood began.  That violent crazy act was the last act of childhood.” (pg 5)

She saw Miss Lottie not as the witch they pretended she was when they were children, but as an old, broken woman who had tried to create something beautiful in her ugly world.  She suddenly saw into the pain and the depth of the old woman.  She remarks,

“This was the beginning of compassion, and one cannot have compassion and innocence.” (pg 5)

At the end of the story, she remarks that she remembers those marigolds from time to time.  The marigolds represented to her the bright side of a dark and barren town. She says that you do not have to be poor to live a barren life.  So she too has planted marigolds ---- little bright spots in her life.

My copy of the story came from the internet, so the page numbers may not exactly coincide with yours, but they should be close.

Who are some women who have inspired you in your life?

Today (8th of March) is International Women's Day, so I am very excited to answer your question! I will talk about a few women who have inspired me in my life who I hope are inspirational to others, too.

The first person I would like to recognize is Malala Yousafzai. Malala was born in 1997 in Pakistan, where the Taliban had restricted many (especially girls) from attending school. Her father had a profound impact on Malala as a right-to-education activist. When she was twelve, Malala began writing a blog about the situation of education in Pakistan and her fears that her school might close or be attacked. Both she and her father received death threats from the Taliban, who wanted them to stop speaking out against the restrictions on education and access to media. In 2011, Malala was revealed as the author of the blog and nominated for the International Youth Peace Prize and received the first Pakistani National Youth Peace Prize. In 2012, a member of the Taliban shot Malala in the head on her way home from school. She was in critical condition but survived. Her attack raised global awareness on the restrictions to education in Pakistan, and governmental change has since been made. Malala now works as a global advocate for girl's right to education and has helped to fund the building of schools. Malala inspires me to work for what is right, even if it seems impossible.

The second woman I want to recognize is Frida Kahlo, who is a popular feminist icon even today. Kahlo suffere many health problems during her life, and was injured in a bus accident as a teen. She turned to painting to keep herself busy. Because she was often alone, she painted mostly self-portraits. Kahlo's art gives insight to her personal experiences and feelings, especially those of learning to live in an unpredictable body. Her paintings are not just an autobiographical commentary but serve to subvert normative beliefs about beauty. Frida refused to paint herself in a manner that appealed to popular beauty by denying her true form- perhaps most notably, she painted herself with her "ungroomed" brows and facial hair in tact. Her art speaks to the authenticity of the self, and though her paintings contain features which might be considered "ugly" by popular standards, they are still beautiful and captivating. Frida Kahlo inspires me to accept myself as I am and to share that beauty with others.

Third, and finally, I recognize Jane Goodall. You may know her as the woman who works with chimpanzees. Goodall is a famous primatologist, known for her long-term studies of primate behavior. Before Goodall's work, no long-term studies of chimpanzee behavior had been successful. Through her passion and patience, she was able to gain the trust of Tanzanian chimpanzees and sit amongst them to observe and "get to know" their lives. Her work was revolutionary not just for her methods but from what she learned. Goodall has written many books on the behavior of chimpanzees, which offer insight into our own evolutionary past and inspires us to respect chimpanzees as thinking, feeling beings. Jane Goodall is an animal rights activist and promotes the ethical treatment of and cooperation with our fellow animals. She inspires me to be patient with my work and be mindful of the animals around me, as they have their own lives.

These are just three women who have inspired me in my work and my personal life- I hope they are inspirational to you, too!

Discuss the geostrategic location of Kenya in the relation to the British occupation of the country.

Part of the reason the English wanted to colonize Kenya was the region's importance to the slave trade, which was established during the rule of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The area had long been a trade hub because it was close to the Arabian Peninsula. From Zanzibar, an archipelago of islands off the east coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean, the sultan ran trading operations in the area. David Livingstone, an explorer, used Zanzibar as a home base while exploring the Nile, and the reports of slavery he sent to England put pressure on England from abolitionists to ban slavery. The sultan banned slavery in 1873.

Another reason the British wanted to control this area was the encroaching German presence in the region. In the 1880s, the Germans formed the German East Africa Company and set up a colony called Tanganyika. In response, the British formed the British East India Company. In 1890, the British and Germans came to an agreement carving up the region.

In addition, Kenya became an important and fertile agricultural center colonized by the British. In 1895, the British East Africa Company, facing the high costs of colonizing the area, sold their concern to the British government, and the area became the East Africa Protectorate. The government decided to build a railroad to colonize the highlands. These areas were suitable for crops, and the highlands became an area restricted to white settlement. The area became a center of coffee growing using local Kikuyu people for labor. Many of the laborers who built the railroad were from India, and they settled in Kenya. During World War I, Kenya served as a military base for Britain, further increasing its importance to the the empire. 

How do I compare and contrast?

When we are comparing and contrasting, we are looking at similarities and differences in two things. They could be two people, two events, two situations, or two objects, for example.  I see that you have asked this under the heading of "history," so I am assuming you are expected to compare and contrast something in history.  I will give you a few examples and then explain how to organize a compare and contrast essay. 

One kind of useful compare and contrast analysis in history is an examination of how two wars are the same and are different.  For example, as the United States has been looking at the war in Afghanistan, it is helpful to ask how this war is similar to the Vietnam war and how it is different because that can help us decide whether or not we want to continue to engage in this war.  The war in Vietnam was similar to the war in Afghanistan in that we were engaged in a kind of guerrilla warfare, not a traditional kind of war with a "front" to fight on.  A difference is that the war in Afghanistan is over religious extremism, not over communism versus democracy.  There are many other similarities and differences that can be looked at.

Another kind of compare and contrast that can be done is to analyze two leaders, for example, two presidents of the United States or a president of the United States and the president of another country.  Clinton and Obama have similarities and differences.  Both have espoused liberal policies for the country, but Clinton's personality is quite charismatic, while Obama's is more cautious and professorial. 

Two countries can be compared and contrasted, too, for example, the United States and Australia.  Both were developed by many involuntary "pioneers," slaves and convicts. Both seem to have far more coastal development than interior development.  A major difference is geographic, since Australia has far less water than the United States, much of Australia being an almost uninhabitable desert. 

When we write a compare and contrast essay, there are two ways of organizing it, the point by point method and the block method. In the point by point method, we write a series of paragraphs in which we discuss one point at at a time, whether it is a similarity or a difference.  So, if we were writing about the United States and Australia, there could be a paragraph on geography, a paragraph on how the countries were founded, a paragraph on their respective politics, and a paragraph on their natural resources.  In the block method, we would discuss first all the similarities and second all the differences.  Once you know what the objects of comparison and contrast are going to be, you can make a list of similarities and differences and then decide which way you would like to organize your essay. 

Who is King Christian in Number the Stars and why do people look up to him?

King Christian X is the king of Denmark, and his people love him because he acts like everyone else and because he stands up for his country against the Nazis.

King Christian was well-respected and beloved by his people. They considered him a strong leader because he stood up to the Nazis. Denmark was a small country without the military might to avoid German invasion. King Christian did not just bow down and let the Nazis take over his country without a fight, though. He supported clandestine operations to undermine their war efforts.

How the people of Denmark loved King Christian! He was not like fairy tale kings, who seemed to stand on balconies giving orders to subjects, or who sat on golden thrones demanding to be entertained and looking for suitable husbands for daughters. King Christian was a real human being, a man with a serious, kind face. (Ch. 2)

King Christian is an everyman. He doesn’t put himself above his people, and he is very visible. He used to ride through the streets greeting people every morning. Annemarie’s father tells her a story of a Nazi soldier who asked why the king did not have a bodyguard.

“[All] of Denmark is his bodyguard.”

Annemarie had shivered. It sounded like a very brave answer. "Is it true, Papa? “She asked. "What the boy said?" …

 "Yes," he said at last. "It is true. Any Danish citizen would die for King Christian, to protect him." (Ch. 2)

After King Christian X had gotten old, and was injured riding his horse, he still remained king. He was still beloved, and still in charge of Denmark even though the Nazis occupied it. Unlike many other countries, Denmark actively supported the underground that helped the Jews escape. In 1943, Denmark sank its navy rather than let the Nazis have it.

How did Tom Robinson influence Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird?

At most, Tom's influence is entirely indirect. It's more what surrounds Tom and his trial, the testimony about what he allegedly did, that begins to change Scout's mind about what her peers and the people in her town believe to be true about Black-Americans. She sits in the courtroom and listens to Mayella tell her tale about how Tom brutally attacked her, and her father, Bob, corroborates her testimony. However, she also hears Tom give his side of the story, and learns that because of his damaged left arm, he couldn't possibly have inflicted the wounds Mayella and Bob claimed he had. Scout begins to come to her own conclusion that the trial wasn't fair to Tom, and that the treatment of the white folks towards the black population in Maycomb was unjust. The fact that Tom was killed by the police may also have caused Scout to wonder if justice was truly blind. We see her attitudes change as she gets older and sees the hypocrisy in everyone being upset about Hitler's terrorizing of the Jews, but not seeing the horror inflicted on the blacks by Southern whites. So while Scout never spoke to Tom herself, everything that happened to him echoed in her soul. 

Hypothetical scenario: How would one rebut the false testimony of a police officer who claimed that someone had been drinking because he smelled...

If you had not, in fact, consumed alcohol, especially because of the risk of adverse interactions between alcohol and your medications, then you should have demanded a sobriety test at the moment of the traffic stop. Presumably, the police officer pulled you over because he observed erratic behavior on your part and suspected that the driver of the vehicle being driven was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A police officer can use the "smell test" to demand further evidence of a potential driving-under-the-influence case, but that further evidence involves some form of sobriety test, usually a series of physical movements on the part of the driver to test that person's coordination, which would be adversely affected by alcohol. Also, the police officer would typically administer a breathalyzer test, which is more fact-based that field sobriety tests that involve demonstrations of the driver's coordination. A driver's inability to execute a field sobriety test involving a series of physical movements is not absolute proof of guilt; on the contrary, many suspects can legitimately claim that their coordination is impaired by virtue of some form of physical disability, such as those that involve muscular movements. A breathalyzer test, however, is scientific evidence of the presence of alcohol in a driver's system. Your question did not specify whether any of these tests were administered, only that the officer claimed to have smelled alcohol, which is reasonable cause but not definitive proof.

An appeal of a conviction based solely upon a police officer's claim to have smelled alcohol should not be difficult, as a deposition or statement from your physician attesting to your medical condition and history of sobriety would be sufficient, given your age and presumably clear driving and criminal records, to cast reasonable doubt upon the officer's statement. All of this should have come up during the hearing, especially if the driver is represented by legal counsel. Additionally, if you have a "witness" to the officer's deceitful statements -- and, it goes without saying, any statements known by the officer to be false would constitute perjury -- then a statement or deposition from this witness, combined with the statement by your physician, should be more than enough to rebut the police officer's claims.

How to get number of protons without knowing its atomic number of an atom?

The atomic number is the number of protons within an element. The atomic number is what defines an element. If the atomic number changes, then the type of element also changes. If the atomic number of an atom is not known, but the number of electrons and charge of the atom is known, then the number of protons can still be determined.

In a neutrally charged atom, the number of protons equals the number of protons.

A positively charged atom is called a cation. Cations are positively charged becuase electrons were lost. The value of the positive charge indicates the number of electrons lost. In order to determine the value of the number of protons within the nucleus of the cation, the value of the charge is added the current number of remaining electrons within the orbitals of the cation.

A negatively charged ion is called an anion. Atoms become negatively charged when they gain electrons. The value of the negative charge indicates how many electrons were gained. In order to determine the value of the number of protons within the nucleus of an anion, the value of the charge is subtracted from the current number of remaining electrons within the orbitals of the anion.

Describe the character, Nyakinyua.

Nyakinyua is Wanja's grandmother and the most respected person in the village of Ilmorog (especially due to the fact that she is the revered storyteller). Nyakinyua is always providing insights into Ilmorog’s past in her stories which stem from before colonialism in Ilmorog to Nyakinyua’s husband’s fight against British troops. Nyakinyua is responsible for all of the traditional ceremonies and dances that happen in Ilmorog.

Nyakinyua is quite wary of Munira’s appearance in Ilmorog (because Nyakinyua fears that Munira will run from the village just like those that came before him). When the rains finally come, the villagers of Ilmorog dance in their native rituals suggested by Nyakinyua. To futher the celebration, Nyakinyua creates a special brew for everyone to drink from the Thang'eta plant, a very special addition to the ceremony.

To the great sadness of the village, Nyakinyua finally dies and (worse) the banks swoop down to take the land she owns. Here is where the main protagonist of Wanja comes in. Wanja sells her successful business in order to buy Nyakinyua’s land. One wonders what Nyakinyua would think about Wanja’s new business that she creates (a brothel), where Wanja is both the owner and one of the prostitutes.

Discuss the political organization of the empire created by Charlemagne. How did he rule?

Charlemagne, also called Charles the Great, was King of the Franks and unified much of modern Europe under one Carolingian Empire. Though Charlemagne ruled from 768 after his father's death, he was not coronated as Holy Roman Emperor until Christmas Day in the year 800. The crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, and the establishment of a Holy Roman Empire, formed a union between the "two swords" of European power. This metaphor represents the Holy Roman Catholic Church, who wielded religious power, and the King or Emperor, who wields secular power. Both served to legitimate and support each other.

Charlemagne is known for instigating a number of social, religious, and governmental reforms. The Carolingian Empire was organized around him and his supreme (secular) rule and included these reforms. Though Charlemagne was the utmost authority on all matters in his territories, he employed a number of administrators who were dispatched the various territories and reported on the status there once a year. The various counties were watched over by a Count (or Comes), who was responsible for local law and order and the maintenance of toll roads. The Missi Dominici made rounds in their appointed territories to keep the various localities up to date with changes in secular law and any new religious capitularies- sort of statements of intent to reform.

Further down the line were Vassi Dominici, vassals to the King who held benefices of land, which was worked by peasants. The Vassi Dominici oversaw the general maintenance of their lands and also offered military service to the king.

In general, Charlemagne was the supreme ruler of the Carolingian Empire, and he had the utmost authority on all matters. But because so much land and so many people made up the Empire, he employed a variety of administrative economic, governmental, judicial, and religious assistants to perform more day-to-day tasks on his behalf. His progeny went on to rule the Empire for many generations, and his administrative system laid the foundation for several modern European nations.

What is the best way to start a middle school level essay that will impress your teacher?

There are a few things you can do to impress your teacher. In a five paragraph essay on Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl, your first paragraph is the most important. A good first paragraph does a couple of things:

• Introduces the book by summarizing the plot. Example: Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl is about a Jewish family who hides from the Nazis in occupied Amsterdam.


• Introduces the focus of your essay. Example: Inside the secret annex, living conditions were tough for the residents.


• Concludes with a clear thesis statement. Example: The cramped annex caused the tension between Anne and her family throughout the book.

If the above example was your thesis statement, each of your three body paragraphs would explain a different way the annex caused tension between Anne and her family.

Another way to make your first paragraph shine is carefully checking for spelling or other grammar errors. These mistakes distract the reader from what you're trying to say in your essay.

How is gratitude shown in "Thank You, M'am"?

When one expresses gratitude, he shows appreciation for kindness by being kind in return. In the short story “Thank You, M'am” by Langston Hughes, Roger demonstrates his gratitude for Mrs. Jones without saying a word.

At the beginning of the story, Roger attempts to steal Mrs. Jones’ purse. Not letting him off easy, Mrs. Jones gives Roger some tough love. After scolding him for trying to snatch her purse, she takes him to her house, allows him to clean himself up, feeds him, and even gives him the $10 he attempted to steal from her.

A key moment in their interaction is when Mrs. Jones explains to him that she was once young and couldn’t get everything she wanted: “I were young once and I wanted things I could not get” (2). This allows Roger to begin to trust Mrs. Jones.

When they begin eating, Mrs. Jones, conscientious of the fact that Roger might not have a great home life, doesn’t ask him personal questions. Instead, she keeps talking about herself, allowing Roger to trust Mrs. Jones even more.

After handing Roger the $10, she teaches him a lesson: “. . . do not make the mistake of latching onto my pocketbook nor nobody else’s—because shoes come by devilish like that will burn your feet” (3). Roger is able to actually listen to this advice because Mrs. Jones has built trust between them.

Throughout the story, Roger doesn’t say much. However, before leaving, he does say thank you to Mrs. Jones, and he wants to say more. This shows that he is grateful to Mrs. Jones, not only for the food, but for the advice and life lesson she has given him. This makes readers believe that Roger may actually change his ways.

What is the evidence of education in Jane Eyre?

Education is a theme throughout Jane Eyre.  When Jane was a girl, she was sent away to Lowood School.  It was a strict religious charity school for orphaned girls.  Jane received an education there under the rigid and cold instruction of the teachers and Mr. Brocklehurst, a minister in charge of the school.  Despite the challenges of Lowood School, Jane excelled and eventually became a teacher there.  She taught for two years.  Eager for a new experience, Jane took a position as a private governess to a young girl.  She left Lowood School to move to Thornfield.  Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper at Thornfield, described Jane as a "kind and careful teacher" to her young pupil.  

Later, Jane left Thornfield and found her cousins, St. John, Diana, and Mary. Diana and Mary soon had to leave to earn a living as governesses.  St. John asked Jane to take a position as a schoolmistress at the parish school for girls.  St. John thought that Jane would scoff at such a position, but she was eager to take it.  He told her that it was only a "'village school'" and that her pupils would "'be only poor girls... at the best, farmers’ daughters.'"  He worried that she would think such a position to be below her, because she would only be teaching "knitting, sewing, reading, writing, [and] ciphering."  Jane told him that she was not an ambitious person.

Education is important in Jane Eyre.  Much of Jane's childhood takes place at Lowood School.  Later, she becomes a teacher there, at Thornfield, and at the village school.  Her cousins, Mary and Diana, are also governesses.  Jane clearly loves teaching and learning.  She is a good and devoted teacher and she values education.

Reformers never tired of exposing the corruption of Plunkitt and men like him. Why were they so popular with voters?

While reformers wanted to go after the party bosses and political machine leaders like George Plunkett and William M. “Boss” Tweed, these people were very popular with the voters. There are reasons for this occurring.

The leaders of the political machines helped people in need. Many of these people were poor, and the political machines provided them with various things that took care of their basic needs. If people needed help with getting food, the leaders of the political machine would take care of that need. If somebody needed a job, the leaders of the machine helped these individuals get a job. Medical care was provided for those who needed it. These people who were helped were very grateful for this help. They were reminded they could help the political machine by voting for their candidates on the day elections were being held. They were more than willing to help those people who had helped them. Thus, these people were very popular with the voters.

If everyone was treated right in the beginning, would we have any conflict (wars, etc) now?

There is, of course, no way to know this for sure because we cannot go back to “the beginning” (however you define that) and see what happens if we treat everyone “right” (however you define that).  My own view is that there would have been conflict and wars among human beings no matter what.  It appears to be in our nature to be selfish and greedy and those aspects of our nature will inevitably cause conflict.

I would say that the real problem is that our desire to have things our own way would have prevented us from ever agreeing on what constituted treating people “right.”  Whenever two people, or two groups of people, want the same thing, they will have a hard time deciding on what the “right” way is to decide who gets it.  For example, let us imagine that we wanted to treat everyone “right” and then we discovered that some countries have oil and other countries don’t.  What is “right” here?  Should the countries that have oil be allowed to gain all of the benefits, charging other countries for that oil?  Or is it “right” for those countries to share and allow everyone to have some oil?  As another example, what about fish off the coast of Portugal or Spain?  Do those fish belong only to Portugal or Spain, or could people from Italy come and catch those fish as well?  How far off the shore of Portugal do all the fish belong to that country? 

These sorts of questions do not have any obviously correct answers.  No matter how we answer them, someone is likely to feel that the outcome is unfair.  Because we human beings tend to want things our own way, we tend to define “right” in ways that are beneficial to us.  Therefore, even if we tried to treat everyone “right” our selfishness and greed would lead to disagreements about how to define “right” and, therefore, to conflict.  For this reason, I think that conflict would have been inevitable in our world no matter how we treated people “in the beginning.”

How did the Treaty of Versailles lead to World War II?

The Treaty of Versailles helped contribute to the start of World War II. The Treaty of Versailles was very harsh on the Central Powers, and especially on Germany. Germany was required to pay $33 billion in reparations to the Allies. They also had to accept responsibility for starting World War I. Additionally, all Central Power countries lost land. Germany also had its military dismantled so that it couldn't go on the offensive.

These harsh terms created much resentment in Germany. Germany went into a severe depression after World War I. This allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power by promising to get revenge for the harsh treaty. He also promised to rebuild Germany’s economy and restore German pride.

Italy, which switched to the Allied side in World War I, felt it didn’t receive enough land from the Versailles Treaty. Benito Mussolini wanted to avenge this mistreatment. He promised to restore Italy to the glory days of the Roman Empire. He also promised to build up Italy’s economy.

The harsh Versailles Treaty created anger in Germany and in Italy. These countries wanted to get revenge for how they believed they were mistreated.

In "The Most Dangerous Game" identify the advantages Rainsford has after he beats Zaroff.

In Richard Connel's short story, "The Most Dangerous Game," Sanger Rainsford is a big game hunter on his way to South America to hunt jaguars. While traveling by yacht he accidentally falls overboard and swims to a nearby island, notoriously named "ship-trap island."

At the beginning of the story Rainsford has a discussion with his companion Whitney about hunting. The purpose of the conversation is to provide foreshadowing for events to come in the story. Rainsford contends that the animals he hunts have no feelings whatsoever and that it is perfectly natural for the hunter to hunt down and kill the hunted. Whitney disagrees and says,

"Even so, I rather think they understand one thing--fear. The of pain and the fear of death."

This brief interaction is significant because once Rainsford meets General Zaroff on the island he soon knows exactly what an animal being hunted experiences. Zaroff is a Russian who has come to this island specifically to hunt. Because he has grown bored with hunting animals he now hunts the men he captures when their ships sink along the coast of the island.

Zaroff initially treats Rainsford as an honored guest, but, when Rainsford refuses to join his diabolical hunt, he sends his guest into the jungle armed only with a knife and a head start, after which he methodically hunts him down. Rainsford's resourcefulness saves him and by the end of the hunt he has killed one of Zaroff's best dogs, his servant and has made his way back into the general's palatial chateau. When Rainsford reveals himself in the general's bedroom they fight. Before they duel the general says,

"One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed."

We know Rainsford wins the duel because the last lines of the story say, 

He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided.

So, on the surface, we discover one of Rainsford's advantages. He lives, while the general dies. He is also able to sleep in the bed. But implicitly Connel wants to tell the reader that Rainsford is a changed man and that hunting has lost its appeal. He knows what it is to be a "beast at bay." The reader cannot tell for sure but may guess that Rainsford will never use a gun against an animal again.  Rainsford has the gained the most human characteristic of compassion after his encounter with the sadistic Zaroff.

Describe how you can measure reaction rates.

The rate of a chemical reaction is expressed as the change in concentration of a substance during a given time interval. It can be either the rate of disappearance of a reactant or the rate of appearance of a product: rate =  `Delta` [C]/`Delta` t

There are several methods of measuring a rate, depending on the type of reaction. 

If a gas is produced, the rate can be measured by measuring the amount of gas that forms in specific time intervals. This can be accomplished by collecting the gas in a syringe with a moveable piston. 

If a sufficient mass of gas is evolved the change in mass of the reactants can be monitored.

If the reaction is sufficiently exothermic or endothermic the rate can be measured by measuring the change in temperature in specific time intervals.

If the reaction involves a color change the rate of change in color can be measured using a spectrophotometer or colorimeter.

If the reaction produces a precipitate, the rate of precipitate formation can be determined by timing the formation of enough solid to obscure an mark on the bottom of the flask and weighing the precipitate.

What are three details that help you picture Rikki in "Rikki-tikki-tavi"?

Rikki looks like a cat, has a head like a weasel, and has red eyes.

Rikki, the main character, is described physically in the story.  He is a mongoose.  Many readers may not know what a mongoose is, so the author includes details so that we can picture Rikki.

He was a mongoose, rather like a little cat in his fur and his tail, but quite like a weasel in his head and his habits. His eyes and the end of his restless nose were pink; … he could fluff up his tail till it looked like a bottle-brush …

From this description, we know Rikki’s size and the way his fur looks.  We even know the color of his nose!  The author also gives us some personality traits with the description, because we know that he is like a weasel not just in his head but also in his behavior.

We are also given a lot of detail about what Rikki looked like when he got wet and washed up in the garden. Rikki was soaking went, but he dried off and recovered. He spent his time wandering around the house, investigating everything.

A mongoose hunts snakes.  The story describes how Rikki is quick and clever when fighting Nag, Nagaina, and Karait.  Although this is not a specific trait, we can tell how Rikki moves and by that we can picture what he looks like.

Rikki-tikki's eyes grew red again, and he danced up to Karait with the peculiar rocking, swaying motion that he had inherited from his family. It looks very funny, but it is so perfectly balanced a gait that you can fly off from it at any angle you please; and in dealing with snakes this is an advantage.

From these details of Rikki’s physical features and his fighting style, we can easily imagine Rikki as if he were right in front of us.  The character traits help us understand why Rikki does what he does, and make the story more interesting.

What is good about Atticus's advice to Scout?

Atticus gives Scout advice frequently throughout To Kill a Mockingbird, but probably the most well-known and most often referenced is when he says:

You never really know someone until you consider things from his point of view... until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

In other words, we cannot know a person until a have tried to look at things from his perspective. This can help us to look beyond the surface and refrain from judging a person based on appearances or little information, and in turn might help us act a bit kinder toward one-another. This advice proves to be important to Scout many times throughout the novel. It helps her make sense of others' actions, including Boo Radley and Bob Ewell. Ultimately, it teaches her to have empathy for others and refrain from judging them until she has tried to understand their circumstances. For example, Mayella Ewell is someone in the novel who comes from difficult circumstances and is considered an outsider in Maycomb. When she testifies in court, Scout is able to have empathy for Mayella because she tries to understand those difficult circumstances rather than judge her on the surface.

What is reproduction?

Reproduction is the process by which organisms, such as plants and animals, produce offspring. In this process, organisms replicate themselves and bear offspring in order to ensure the survival of their species. Reproduction can be a sexual or an asexual act, dependent on the species. In sexual reproduction, the formation of a new organism is created by the union of a male and female gamete, or reproductive cell. Organisms that partake in sexual reproduction mostly include animals and certain plants. In asexual reproduction, a single organism generates a new organism. This organism is genetically identical to its parent. Organisms that partake in asexual reproduction include most fungi, bacteria and certain plants. Cell reproduction usually includes the division of a cell into two identical parts or into four different parts. These cell divisions are, respectively, known as mitosis and meiosis.

Environment pollution is an inevitable consequence of worldwide improvements in the standards of living. Discuss.

In last few decades, we have observed a general improvement in standards of living across the world. This improvement can be gauged in terms of better access to food and medicare (resulting in higher life expectancy), higher per capita GDP and higher literacy rate, etc. Many of these improvements require consumption of resources. For example, more food means better irrigation, more consumption of chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), more mechanization, etc. Similarly, higher per capita GDP is achieved through industrialization, which requires (among others) energy and resources. As such, all these improvements mean higher consumption of fossil fuels for energy, higher rate of generation of wastes (solid, liquid and gaseous) from our industries and homes, etc. All these have environmental costs. Fossil fuels generate gases, industrial waste finds its way to our water bodies and/or land, gaseous emissions contaminate our air, etc. Thus, environmental pollution is an inevitable consequence of improvement in standards of living and unfortunately, severe environmental issues would be there (especially for rapidly developing countries, such as India and China), as recently seen with air quality in Beijing and New Delhi.

Hope this helps. 

Who is more important in the story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin: the group or the individual?

The group is much more important than the individual in Omelas.

With its alternate title "Variations on a Theme by William James," author Ursula K. Le Guin explores the concept of the scapegoat and satirizes the philosophy of Pragmatism, which was "pressed into service" by William James in a speech delivered in 1898. The significance of pragmatism was that the utility of a theory lay in its problem-solving power. So, with this in mind, the use of the suffering and miserable child as a scapegoat for all the negative factors of the society of Omelas is accepted as necessary for the happiness of the majority.

The people have come to an understanding of what is necessary, what is destructive, and is both or neither.

In her allegorical tale, LeGuin challenges this theory with the actions of some of the citizens who cannot live with the knowledge of the misery of the scapegoat, but they do not solve anything as they simply walk away.