How do you balance this equation: potassium chlorate --->potassium chloride + oxygen?

We are asked to balance the following word equation:

potassium chlorate --> potassium chloride + oxygen

The first step would be to know the chemical formula/ formula unit for each compound/ molecule. A key aspect to remember when balancing this particular word equation is that oxygen exists in its diatomic state. Thus,

KClO3 --> KCl + O2

Next, we need to identify how many atoms of each element we have on the reactant side and the product side. This is indicated by the subscripts directly to the right of each element's symbol. No subscript indicates that there is only one atom present for that element.

Reactants

K = 1

Cl = 1

O = 3

Products

K = 1

Cl = 1

O = 2

It becomes evident that the oxygens are not balanced. Thus, we begin by balancing the oxygens so that there are 6 oxygen atoms on either side of the equation. Coefficients placed to the left of a chemical formula/ formula unit are used to increase the number of atoms of an element. A coefficient applies to all atoms within that chemical formula/ formula unit.

2KClO3 --> KCl + 3O2

Now we need two potassium atoms and two chloride atoms on the product side. Thus, the following is the final balanced equation:

2KClO3 --> 2KCl + 3O2

How can an organization with a strong “made in America” identity compete in the global marketplace?

The number one rule in successful competition is this: Find your comparative advantage. What do you do better, faster, and/or cheaper than anyone else?

As is well known, wages are considerably higher in the US and other First World countries than they are in Third World countries such as India and Nicaragua. If you assume that a product has fixed quality and requires a fixed amount of worker-hours to produce, then (aside from shipping costs) it's obviously more efficient---and thus more profitable---to produce that product in a Third World country. Thus, a company that sells itself on "Made in the USA" would not be able to compete on that basis.

But these are not the only differences between these countries. Wages in the US aren't simply higher by some weird quirk or bad policy; they are higher because US workers have more skills and better education than workers in India. Technology is also better in the US; US workers may be able to use production methods such as automation, computer-aided design, or 3D printing that workers in India would not be able to do. Combining these factors, US workers might be able to produce many more goods per worker-hour, or goods of much higher quality, than workers in India. Thus, the goods could be cheaper because workers are so much more productive, or their higher quality could make people buy them even if they are more expensive.

Some goods also vary more in quality than others. Your shirt may say "Made in India", but I'm guessing your car doesn't---it was probably made in the US, Germany, or Japan, where workers are skilled and high-tech factories are available.

Finally, there's always American nationalism. A somewhat more cynical approach would be for the US business to really capitalize on American nationalism to get people to buy products that say "Made in the USA" even if they cost more and aren't actually any better. There is actually a well-known "puzzle" in economics about this, called the "home bias in trade puzzle": People are much more likely to buy goods from people in their own country or similar countries than they are to buy goods from more different countries, even if the goods are the same quality and much cheaper. Personally I don't find it all that puzzling: Humans are nationalistic.

How did the Industrial Revolution affect Britain politically?

By the early 1800s, England's population had shifted from rural areas to new industrialized centers such as Manchester. The Industrial Revolution and the enclosure movement, which involved closing off formerly communal pasturelands to landowners who wanted to raise sheep or grow crops, drove many people to cities to work in factories. In addition, a class of middle-class and wealthy factory owners and managers developed. However, the populations of these new industrial areas and the wealthy new industrialists were not represented in Parliament, which drew its membership from land owners, not from the industrial class.

The effect of the Industrial Revolution was that industrialists, particularly in cities such as Manchester and Liverpool, started pushing for increased representation in Parliament. After years of agitating for increased political representation, the new industrialists finally were able to have the Reform Bill of 1832 passed. This bill increased the political representation of cities such as Manchester and Liverpool in the British Parliament. In addition, reform bills such as the Factory Act of 1833 improved working conditions for children in factories. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution set into motion increased power for new industrialists in cities outside London, as well as started reform movements to improve working conditions in factories. 

In the poem "A Poison Tree" by William Blake, why did the speaker's wrath end when he told his friend about it?

In a relationship between friends, there can be disagreement and even anger, certainly, no matter how good the friendship is.  When we value a friendship, we express our disagreement or anger, we talk it out with the friend, and then it is over and done with, we hope. This is in sharp contrast to what the narrator does with his foe, isn't it?  He does not express his anger; he keeps it to himself and nurses it, feeding it, so it grows larger and stronger, ultimately strong enough to poison his foe and kill him. The idea is that when we vent our negative feelings, we are able to be done with them. Those negative feelings we do not express are far more difficult to get over because, the narrator believes, they fester, like an untreated wound. There is disagreement amongst psychologists about this, with some thinking that "getting it all out" is mentally healthy, and others focusing more on changing behavior rather than cathartic release. 

How are Venice and Belmont described in The Merchant of Venice?

Venice is not described, but we can glean certain information about the city from the characters. Venice appears to be a diverse and thriving area that is also an important trading site. Antonio notes that the duke cannot simply change the law because that would “much impeach the justice of his state; / Since that the trade and profit of the city / Consisteth of all nations.” There is a sense of mercantile freedom, regardless of one’s background, as exemplified by the Jewish Shylock being able to make a living by charging interest on loans.

On the other hand, Venice harbors severe bigotry. Salarino (hopefully hyperbolically) states that “all the boys in Venice follow” Shylock, mocking his tears for his eloped daughter and the treasures she stole. The law is also not as strictly just as it first seems to Shylock. Portia points out that if someone sheds “One drop of Christian blood” everything that person owns will go to the state. The legal system is distinctly slanted towards Christians. In fact, Portia refers to Shylock as “an alien” whose life is worth less than that of a citizen. As far as we know, what makes Shylock an alien rather than a citizen is his religion and ethnicity.

Characters likewise do not describe Belmont in so many words, but it does come across as an almost magical place, far from Venice and harboring the beautiful and rich Portia. At first, she is like a princess trapped in a beautiful castle by her father’s will, only free when the right suitor selects the right casket. The main characters end up in Belmont, providing a possibly happy, fairy-tale-like ending to a troubling comedy.

How did Pap influence Huck's personality?

Pap, in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, is almost the worst father one can imagine. He is an ignorant, abusive, racist alcoholic. However, even though Pap is an unsympathetic character and Huck a generally sympathetic protagonist, Pap did have a significant effect on the formation of Huck's personality.

First, lacking a stable and nurturing family life, Huck never really internalized many forms of social codes of his period. In some ways this was good. Rather than absorbing the racism of his surroundings, he lets his innate sympathy with Jim guide his actions rather than being guided by racial prejudice.

Second, Huck is only marginally literate. Rather than encouraging Huck to buckle down and get a good education, Pap, himself illiterate, after kidnapping Huck says:

"You've put on considerable many frills since I been away… You're educated, too, they say—can read and write. You think you're better'n your father, now, don't you, because he can't?" 

Like his father, Huck is uncomfortable with the trappings of civilization, and dislikes the attempts of Widow Douglas and Miss Watson to ensure that he goes to school and that he learns some rudiments of good manners and personal hygiene. 

Huck's rebellious nature and resistance to convention, which in many ways follow his father's character, lead to his ability to enjoy his adventures on the river and to survive them. Pap's father, though, also encourages Huck to enjoy smoking and swearing, and generally to live for the moment rather than plan for the future. While this might sound like fun while Huck is a teenager, this isn't really a path that leads to a happy adult life.

Although Huck is not (at this point in his life) an addict like his father, he still does have a somewhat similar character in craving excitement and adventure and lacking self-discipline.

Finally, Pap's casual cruelty helps form the good side of Huck's character. Having been beaten and starved himself, he has sympathy for Jim and other outsiders in his society. 

How does Macbeth's reaction to killing Duncan change by the end of scene 3 in act 2? How is this different from his responses immediately after he...

Macbeth has clearly regained his composure by the end of this scene and is intent on putting the blame on someone else for the king's murder. Immediately after he had murdered Duncan he was anxious and clearly traumatised by what he had done, but now he is in charge and speaks of punishing those who had committed this most foul deed.

Macbeth confesses that he had killed Duncan's two guards once he had re-entered the king's chamber. He states:

O, yet I do repent me of my fury,
That I did kill them.

This was clearly an attempt to get rid of any loose ends. With the guards out of the way, he cannot be implicated.

Before, when Lady Macbeth had asked him to return to Duncan's room to return the guards' daggers and smear them with the king'sblood, he refused, saying:

I'll go no more:
I am afraid to think what I have done;
Look on't again I dare not.

Obviously, a different frame of mind. Macbeth defends his actions by asking in beautifully contrived metaphors and similes, how anyone, when seeing their king lying lifeless and steeped in his own blood, could resist avenging his foul muder when confronted by the sight of his assassins lying there, covered in his blood and still in possession of the weapons with which they committed the deed?

The image is of a plotting and scheming murderer, unlike the fearful and anxious killer he was immediately after he had assassinated his liege. Immediately after the murder, Macbeth had told his wife, when looking at his bloodied hands,

This is a sorry sight.

He went on to tell Lady Macbeth that he had heard a voice stating that, 'Glamis hath murdered sleep and therefore Cawdor shall sleep no more.' and that he could not say 'Amen' when he tried to. he was clearly overwrought and could not think straight. His wife had to encouage him. She called him cowardly when he was startled by knocking. Macbeth finally states at the end of this scene:

To know my deed, 'twere best not know myself.

Knocking within

Wake Duncan with thy knocking! I would thou couldst!

Macbeth clearly regrets what he has done, but at the end of scene three, none of this remorse is evident. He has become chillingly pitiless and has already planned to move ahead. 

Let's briefly put on manly readiness,
And meet i' the hall together.

The blubbering, angst-ridden individual of before is replaced by one who is not only in charge of his faculties, but also of the situation.

What does Steavens notice is different about the red-bearded lawyer from the others at the funeral in "The Sculptor's Funeral"?

Henry Steavens notices that the red-bearded lawyer, Jim Laird, is the only man who genuinely appreciates the talent and understands the merit of the sculptor, Harvey Merrick.

Not long after he arrives in Sand City and is taken to the Merrick home, the devoted protégé of the sculptor realizes that the small town is filled with people who have narrow and morally corrupted minds. For, to the businessmen of the town, Merrick was a failure; he was not interested in materialism as they are, he could not understand materialism as they have, and he was too sensitive and effeminate. 
There is only one at the gathering who fights the others: Jim Laird. He castigates the group of petty men, telling them that they are responsible for the deaths of some previously idealistic young men who returned to the town from college with ideas of doing business ethically, but soon became so disillusioned by the reality of how unethically business and other matters are really conducted in the town that they became drunkards or killed themselves. Laird tells the gathering of men:

"There was only one boy ever raised in this borderland between ruffianism and civilization who didn't come to grief, and you hated Harvey Merrick more for winning out than you hated all the other boys who got under the wheels."

"Where the old man made his mistake was in sending the boy East to school," retorts banker Phelps, in a sanctimonious tone as he strokes his goatee. "What Harvey needed, of all people, was a course in some first-class Kansas City business college."  

Jim responds by declaring that Harvey was the only one who did not care about Phelps, the man who claims to be able to buy and sell everyone he wants. Harvey, Jim adds, would not have "given a tinker's damn for his [Phelps's] bank nor all his cattle farms put together." But, unlike himself, Harvey did not become the "damned shyster" that Phelps and others wanted. Instead, he left and was able to foster his talents.

Ruefully, Laird adds that he and Harvey "wanted to become great men; so, Harvey left town, but he became "the damned shyster you wanted me to be." He adds,

"You pretend to have some sort of respect for me; and yet you'll stand up and throw mud at Harvey Merrick, whose soul you couldn't dirty and whose hands you couldn't tie."

Clearly, Jim Laird is the only man in the gathering who understood the sculptor because he is the only man with any sense of ethics. He has compromised himself, however, because he returned to his hometown rather than fleeing it, as did Merrick. For having done so, he, too, has become a "shyster." However, his conscience bothers him constantly; for this reason, he drinks. On the day of the sculptor's funeral, Laird is too drunk to attend.

Which of the animals would travel toward the top of the page if they began moving in a straight line? A is a spider, b is a kind of sea urchin, c...

I can't see the last choice on your sheet but I will assume it is J) animals A and C because that would be the correct answer. Choice A is an insect, and choice C is a turtle. They both exhibit bilateral symmetry (only one way to divide the animal into halves) and cephalization (major sense organs at one end). When they move forward, they move in the direction of the cephalized end, which for these two is toward the top of the page. Choice D is a planarian, which is a type of flatworm. It also exhibits bilateral symmetry and cephalization, but the cephalized end is pointing towards the bottom of the page. When it moves forward it will go to the bottom. Choice B appears to be a sea urchin. Whatever type of animal it is, it has radial symmetry (many ways to divide the animal in half), and is not cephalized. There is no real "forward" for this animal, so when it begins to move in a straight line it is no more likely to move in one direction than any other.

What is the main theme in "The Waters of Babylon"?

I think the main theme of "By the Waters of Babylon" is the importance of knowledge.  That theme is a double edged sword though.  Knowledge is important to have and not lose, but it is equally important to not abuse.  

Throughout the story, the reader is learning about the world through the limited view of John.  Things seem vaguely familiar, but completely different.  Eventually the reader learns that the story is taking place in a far off future in a world that has been destroyed by nuclear war.  All of the technology and learning of hundreds of years before has been lost, and the world has reverted to tribal origins and deep superstitions.  The story ends with John vowing to bring back the lost knowledge to his people, so that they can once again be great.  

The other side of the importance of knowledge though comes as a warning from Benet.  John tells his readers that the "gods" had gotten too powerful in their knowledge.  Their learning accelerated beyond their ability to control it and its technologies.  The consequence was the destruction of the world.  

I saw them with wisdom beyond wisdom and knowledge beyond knowledge. And yet not all they did was well done—even I could see that, and yet their wisdom could not but grow until all was peace

What role did Sadiku play in Sidi's visit to Baroka's palace?

Sadiku initially seeks Sidi to tell her that Baroka has requested her hand in marriage. Sidi rejects Baroka's offer because she has become conceited after seeing her images in the magazine. Sidi tells Sadiku that the Bale is much too old to be her husband and insults Baroka several times. Sadiku is shocked and tells Sidi that if she refuses to marry Baroka she can at least come to supper at his house tonight. Sidi again refuses Baroka's invitation because she has heard of how Baroka baits the women who agree to eat supper with him. Sadiku dismisses the rumors and tells Sidi they are nothing but lies, but Sidi doesn't believe her. Sadiku goes home and tells Baroka that Sidi refuses to marry him and will not come over for supper either. Baroka cunningly lies to Sadiku and tells her that he is impotent, knowing full well that Sadiku will gossip. The next day when Sadiku goes to the village, she shares Baroka's "secret" with Sidi, and Sidi tells her that she will accept Baroka's invitation so she can mock him during the meal. By spreading the rumor that Baroka is impotent, Sidi is convinced that the Bale will not able to make any sexual advances towards her. Sadiku unknowingly plays a part in Baroka's plan to woo Sidi by telling her that Baroka is impotent when he's not, which is the reason Sidi is willing to go to his house for supper. 

In Act 2, Scene 4 of Julius Caesar, Portia is worried. Why?

In Act 2, Scene 1, Portia is begging her husband Brutus to tell her what is going on. Brutus is acting extremely strangely, and he is receiving all sorts of mysterious callers at odd hours. He does not want to tell her that he is taking part in a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar because that would make her a co-conspirator. In other words, if the assassination attempt should fail, he would undoubtedly get killed along with all the others, but Portia might be spared and allowed to keep her home and possessions if it were felt she knew nothing about her husband's plans. However, Brutus finally succumbs to her insistence that she has a right to know all his secrets because she is his wife. Towards the end of Act 2, Scene 1, he agrees to tell her everything, but not right then and there because he has visitors to consult with. He tells her:

Portia, go in a while,
And by and by thy bosom shall partake
The secrets of my heart.
All my engagements I will construe to thee,
All the charactery of my sad brows.
Leave me in haste.

We never hear Brutus explain anything to his wife. But in Act 2, Scene 4, it is quite obvious that he has told her everything, just as he promised. Shakespeare did not feel it necessary to show Brutus imparting all this information to his wife because the audience already knows it. There is a big difference in Portia's feelings and behavior now that she had learned the terrible truth. This only adds to all the other tension Shakespeare has been building up as a prelude to the actual assassination. Portia knows that her husband is involved in an extremely dangerous situation which could cost his life, and perhaps even her own. As a woman, she is confined to her home. She can't go to the Capitol to see what is going on. She can only send a messenger--but she can't tell the messenger, Lucius, what she wants him to do. She can't trust Lucius or anybody else. She feels she must not do or say anything that would reveal her guilty knowledge, but she is naturally anxious to know whether the assassination attempt will come off successfully and, if so, what will happen after that. 

She has in fact become a co-conspirator. She wants Julius Caesar to be killed. She may not have wanted that before, but Brutus has brought her into the conspiracy by telling her everything she wanted to know.

There are many men in this play. Shakespeare welcomes an opportunity to show a couple of female characters just for the sake of contrast. One is Caesar's wife Calpurnia, who has a good role as she tries to persuade her husband to stay at home because of her foreboding dreams. The other is Portia, who appears in several scenes and has the leading part in Act 2, Scene 4. Shakespeare undoubtedly had males in his company who specialized in being female impersonators, and he wanted to make some use of them.

Why did the banker and the lawyer make the bet?

The banker and lawyer make the bet for the same reason that most people make a bet.  They each believe that their opinion is right and best, and they are willing to risk something to prove it.  

The story starts with the narrator telling the reader that the banker had a friendly little social gathering.  As with any social gathering, people get to talking about topics that can be argued about.  Capital punishment comes up and a lively discussion ensues.  Some people believe that it is a good thing, while other party attenders think it should never be done.  Most of the opponents believed that the death penalty was immoral.  

The majority of the guests, among whom were many journalists and intellectual men, disapproved of the death penalty. They considered that form of punishment out of date, immoral, and unsuitable for Christian States.

The banker flat out disagrees.  He feels that the death penalty is more humane because it ends a man's life quickly instead of drawing out the process over many years.  

". . . the death penalty is more moral and more humane than imprisonment for life. Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly."

The lawyer, on the hand, feels that both are immoral forms of punishment, but he does feel that life in prison is the better of the two choices.  He feels this way because he feels that any life is better than no life at all.  

"The death sentence and the life sentence are equally immoral, but if I had to choose between the death penalty and imprisonment for life, I would certainly choose the second. To live anyhow is better than not at all."

From that point, it doesn't take the banker long to tell the lawyer to put his money where his mouth is.  

"I'll bet you two millions you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years."

The next part I have never understood.  Instead of just agreeing to the bet, the lawyer ups the ante.  He agrees to stay in prison for 15 years with no extra money!  He triples his incarceration time with no increase of potential reward.  It makes no sense.  But both men believe they are correct, and they are each willing to make a bet to prove it. 

Dramatic irony describes a situation in which the reader has information or knowledge that character in the story does not have. Dramatic irony can...

London uses dramatic irony to great effect in his story "To Build a Fire." In the story, a man is walking from one camp to the next through the Alaskan wilderness, accompanied only by a dog, in extreme cold. The man thinks it might be more than fifty degrees below zero; in fact, London's narrator tells us in paragraph 6, "it was not merely colder than 50 below zero; it was colder than 60 below, than 70 below. It was 75 below zero. Because the freezing point is 32 above zero, it meant that there were 107 degrees of frost."  By telling his reader that it is far colder than the man thought it was, London is simultaneously highlighting how "green" the man is and creating suspense: the reader knows that the man is in a life-threatening situation; even the dog "was worried by the great cold. It knew that this was no time for traveling." As the story progresses, more and more is made of the difference between what the reader knows and what the man does not; the man's analysis of his situation often is limited to his thinking "It certainly is cold!" As it becomes clear that the man will die, the dramatic irony of the story causes the reader to feel pity for the man and also becomes the basis for an object lesson on man's insignificance in the face of the raw power of nature.

If Horatio were able to talk back to Hamlet what would he say and how did Hamlet's madness affect him?

Horatio's last words to Hamlet speak volumes about what he thought of Hamlet's supposed madness. "Never believe it./I am more an antique Roman than a Dane./Here's yet some liquor left" (V.ii.4000-4002). After Horatio witnesses the true madness unfold--Laertes mortally wounding Hamlet, Hamlet mortally wounding Laertes, Gertrude drinking the poisoned wine, Laertes uncovering his and Claudius's plot to kill Hamlet, and Hamlet feeding Claudius the poisoned wine and then stabbing him with the poisoned sword--he wishes to join those who perished and are about to perish by drinking what's left of the poisoned wine. But Hamlet doesn't let him. He begs Horatio to live and set things right, to tell the people of Denmark Hamlet's true story: how King Hamlet was murdered by Claudius, and how everything that followed was enough to drive a man.

But did Horatio think Hamlet was mad? After all, didn't Horatio see King Hamlet's ghost as well? If Horatio could answer Hamlet's request to tell his story, I think he would tell his friend that no man should have to endure the tragedy Hamlet did--the death of his father, the marriage of his mother to his father's brother (and later, known murderer), Ophelia's rejection of him, Ophelia's death as a result of Hamlet's hasty murder of Polonius--without losing his own mental stability.

I think Horatio understood that even though Hamlet claimed he was going to play at being mad, too much tragedy befell him. It was all too much for Hamlet to handle, and his acting mad spilled over into real life. Horatio would have said to Hamlet what he said to the witnesses of the Elsinore massacre at the end of the play: "So shall you hear/of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts;/Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters;/Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause" (V.ii.4047-4050). Horatio would have admitted to his friend that Hamlet was responsible for all acts described here, but so was everyone else who perished. 

Horatio is honest and noble, and he would have stood by his friend, understood that his madness was more than just play-acting, and helped him see how the chain of events that happened from the play's opening led to the tragic final scene.

What is the solution to the conflict/problem in Andrew Clements' book Frindle?

The conflict in Andrew Clements' book Frindle is solved, or resolves, when Nick comes to understand just how influential he can be by carrying out his creative ideas.

After Nick's accomplishment of inventing a new word and making it popular is reported by the news, Nick's town begins quieting down even though usage of the word frindle remains just as persistent and popular as ever. Regardless of the continued popularity of the word, Nick begins feeling a bit guilty for having caused such a great big ruckus. As the narrator explains, suddenly all of Nick's creative ideas "scared him a little," and Nick became very quiet (p. 76). Mrs. Granger notices his quietness and explains to him that "he didn't do anything wrong" (p. 79). She further explains that she was proud of his "good idea" and of how he handled it and knows he has "great things to do in this life" (p. 79). After this speech, Nick feels encouraged to pursue his next big idea of changing the school's lunch program. He also grows up to pursue college and reaches the age he can legally take possession of the trust fund containing the money he earned from frindle merchandise sales. All of these instances help him see just how powerful his creative ideas can truly be.

However, when he is 21 years old, the moment he fully realizes his power is the moment Mrs. Granger sends him a dictionary containing an entry for his new word frindle. She also sends him the letter she had written him ten years ago explaining she is proud of the change he has made and that she chose to oppose the creation of the new word because she knew opposing it would help increase the chances of it becoming a real word. It is after he reads the dictionary entry and her letter that he fully understands just how much he has the power to change the world and just how much he needs to accomplish great changes in the world.

Hence, the story resolves when Nick fully understands the power of his creativity.

What is a character sketch of Gortsby and why he is in the park?

Norman Gortsby is a young man who apparently has a good job in some office in London. He is not married. Otherwise he would have gone home instead of sitting on a park bench at "thirty minutes past six." He has probably been cooped up indoors all day at work and is enjoying the outdoors for an hour or two before going home to a furnished room. He is not rich by any means but he is better off than the people he sees around him in the dusk.

Money troubles did not press on him; had he so wished he could have strolled into the thoroughfares of light and noise, and taken his place among the jostling ranks of those who enjoyed prosperity or struggled for it. 

Gortsby is obviously intelligent. He enjoys watching the passing throng and analyzing them on the basis of their appearance. He considers himself a good judge of people. Perhaps he has the sort of job that requires him to judge people. He might work in a bank or a law office. He seems to be a long-time city dweller. He is somewhat sophisticated, but not as sophisticated as he thinks he is. He probably dresses well, which is one of the things that attract the young grifter who plops down beside him.

Gortsby doesn't mind talking to people. That is one of the reasons he is sitting on a park bench. He is willing to talk to anyone who cares to strike up a conversation, but he is wary of strangers because he knows full well that people who sit down beside you on park benches frequently end up asking for money. At that late hour there should be plenty of benches on which no one is sitting, so Gortsby would have good reason to be suspicious of anyone who sat down beside him. 

Gortsby is not exactly a social climber, but he probably has aspirations to climb a rung or two farther up the social ladder. This is what motivates him to chase after the young stranger when he finds the bar of soap and believes he made a mistake in not offering to lend him enough money to rent a room for the night. The grifter's story makes it appear that he is from a family of landed gentry and that he doesn't know a soul in London. Gortsby fears he may have lost a golden opportunity to form a friendship with a man of his own age and superior station just by lending him a sovereign for a day or two. Gortsby can imagine being invited down to the young man's home for shooting ducks and meeting people who might be useful to him in achieving some upward mobility. This is exactly the impression the young grifter had intended to create with his hard-luck story.

Gortsby was scudding along the dusk-shrouded path in anxious quest for a youthful figure in a light overcoat.

He is falling all over himself with apologies and explanations, trying to make up for his cold rejection earlier.

"Here is my card with my address," continued Gortsby; "any day this week will do for returning the money, and here is the soap — don't lose it again it's been a good friend to you."

Gortsby is destined to be a sadder and wiser young man when it turns out that he never hears from the man he befriended. 

How does Capulet discourage Paris from courting Juliet too quickly in Romeo and Juliet?

Lord Capulet discourages Paris from rushing too quickly by intimating that he has personal knowledge of how quickly that can ruin a marriage. In Act 1, scene 2, Paris asks Lord Capulet for his daughter's hand in marriage. Lord Capulet encourages Paris to wait: 

But saying o'er what I have said before.

My child is yet a stranger in the world.

She hath not seen the change of fourteen years.

Let two more summers wither in their pride

Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride. (II,ii,7-11)

He says this as though Paris has asked many times before and he's simply repeating his answer, that Juliet is far too young to be married. She's almost 14 and Lord Capulet suggests that he wants to wait until Juliet is at least 16 years old to marry her off.

Paris responds with a statement of fact. He says that most women are married off and have babies by this age during this time period.

Lord Capulet follows this statement by saying that just because many young ladies are married at the age of 14, that doesn't mean that it's the best way to do things: 

And too soon marred are those so early made.

Earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she.

She’s the hopeful lady of my earth.

But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart.

My will to her consent is but a part.

An she agreed within her scope of choice,

Lies my consent and fair according voice. (II,ii,13-19)

The reader is left with the idea that Juliet's mother might once have been just like Juliet, a young bride and mother. Lord Capulet suggests that Lady Capulet had Juliet far too young and this may be be a reason that Lady Capulet is so acerbic and distant with her daughter (and her husband). Lord Capulet says that Juliet is his treasure and he loves his daughter. He wants more for her than that. Additionally, Lord Capulet also adds that his blessing is only part of what he wants for Juliet. He urges Paris to win Juliet's heart, saying that once Paris succeeds in wooing Juliet, he'll have Lord Capulet's blessing.  

What are some quotes in The Outsiders that show that Ponyboy is judgmental?

There are many quotes in the novel, The Outsiders, that showcases Ponyboy's judgment of others. Most of those judgmental quotes involve Dally, while some others are about family, and how Ponyboy perceives them. 

The first example of Ponyboy's judgement comes in chapter 5. At that point in the novel, Ponyboy and Johnny were on the run for about 4 to 5 days. Soda wrote a heartfelt letter to Ponyboy, asking him to turn himself in and come home. Instead of listening to Soda's feelings, Ponyboy responds,

He could improve his spelling...

There was no real sentimentality on Ponyboy's part. He did not concern himself with the passion or tone of Soda's letter. He criticized and judged his spelling, then moved on. 

Another example of how Ponyboy judges others happens in chapter six. Dally is trying to convince Johnny not to turn himself in and go to jail. He opens up about being hardened in jail, and that Johnny doesn't know what jail will do to him. Instead of hearing the pleas that Dally is making, and accepting his truth, Ponyboy judges him again. 

Dally never talked like that. Never. Dally didn't give a Yankee dime about anyone but himself, and he was cold and hard and mean. 

Ponyboy allows his bias and disdain for Dally to cloud his perception. He doesn't listen to Dally's words, nor does he understand or accept Dally's truth. Instead, he judges him and ignores all evidence to the contrary of what he perceives. 

What are some comments throughout To Kill a Mockingbird that portray Scout as a curious individual?

Similar to many adolescents, Scout is a curious individual. There are many scenes throughout the novel that portray Scout's curiosity about various people and situations. Earlier in the novel, Scout shares her brother and Dill's curiosity regarding the "malevolent phantom," Boo Radley. In Chapter 5, Scout asks Miss Maudie, "do you think Boo Radley's still alive?" (Lee 57). Scout's question depicts her interest in Boo Radley, and she wonders if he is still living because nobody ever sees him.

There are many explicit concepts throughout the novel that Scout is unaware of because of her youth and innocence. In Chapter 12, Calpurnia mentions that Tom Robinson was accused of raping Mayella Ewell. Scout asks, "what's rape, Cal?" (Lee 165). Calpurnia says, "It's somethin' you'll have to ask Mr. Finch about" (Lee 165). In Chapter 14, Scout asks her father what rape is. Atticus says, "rape was the carnal knowledge of a female by force without consent" (Lee 180). Scout is continually asking her father to define the explicit words she hears throughout the novel which demonstrates her curious nature.

In Chapter 15, Atticus is surrounded by a mob while he is guarding Tom Robinson's jail cell. Scout hears him say, "Do you really think so?" and Scout mentions that his comment was "too good to miss" (Lee 202). Scout is curious about what Atticus will say next and takes off from her hiding spot. Scout's curiosity could have had negative consequences, but fortunately, her presence was enough to ease the tension of the situation.

In Chapter 24, Scout is invited to her Aunt Alexandra's missionary circle. Scout is apprehensive about attending, but witnesses Miss Maudie subtly criticize Mrs. Merriweather for insulting Atticus. Scout says, "She gave Miss Maudie a look of gratitude, and I wondered at the world of women...There was no doubt about it, I must soon enter this world, where on its surface fragrant ladies rocked slowly, fanned gently, and drank cool water" (Lee 313). Scout shows her curiosity by wondering about the subtle communication between Alexandra and Maudie.

How does Harper Lee present good and bad in the society of Maycomb? Which techniques does she use?

One of the ways that Harper Lee shows the difference between good and bad is through her characters. Some characters seem good, but when faced with issues such as racism, they are bad. On the other hand, some people who might be considered bad are actually good. Then there are the characters who are either all good or all bad. For a character who seems good, but who is actually a hypocritical bigot, there's Miss Gates. Another character who is frowned upon by the community, but turns out to be a good person is Dolphus Raymond. And for the characters who are all good or all bad there's Atticus representing the good side and Bob Ewell representing the bad.

First, there's Miss Gates who seems good, but she's got a hypocritical heart. Gates is Scout's third grade teacher who, while discussing Hitler's discrimination and mistreatment of Jews in Germany in class one day, does not teach her students that there is a parallel problem with Whites mistreating African Americans in the South. She herself says a very racist thing while coming out of the courthouse after the Tom Robinson trial. Scout tells Jem what she heard Miss Gates say as follows:

"I heard her say it's time somebody taught 'em a lesson, they were gettin' way above themselves, an' the next thing they think they can do is marry us. Jem, how can you hate Hitler so bad an' then turn around and be ugly about folks right home--" (247).

This passage shows that a white teacher who is respected in the community can also be a hypocrite. She may seem like a great example for young people because she has a reputable job in the community, but her true racist colors are discovered by a clever little girl.

Next, there's Dolphus Raymond who has children with an African American woman, which is a big social no-no. He also walks around drunk all of the time, so the community sees that as strike two. Scout and Dill discover that Mr. Raymond isn't really drunk, but drinks cola wrapped in a brown paper bag to make people think he's drinking. When the kids ask him why he does that, he explains the following:

"I try to give 'em a reason, you see. It helps folks if they can latch onto a reason. When I come to town, which is seldom, if I weave a little and drink out of this sack, folks can say Dolphus Raymond's in the clutches of whiskey--that's why he won't change his ways. He can't help himself, that's why he lives the way he does" (200).

In a way, Mr. Raymond is a hypocrite, too, but he does it to protect himself and probably his mixed children from the full wrath and prejudices of the white community. 

Then there's Atticus who is the epitome of goodness, patience, kindness, and everything Bob Ewell is not! Bob Ewell, for example, pays for his alcohol with welfare checks and lets his children rummage in the dump for their dinner. Atticus is educated and fulfills his parental and community responsibilities by going to work each day, teaching his kids good values, and being a good example to the citizens of the county. Bob Ewell spits in Atticus's face, doesn't take care of his children like he should, and lives a selfish and disgusting life. For both of these men, what you see is what you get, basically. They are the same everywhere they go. In fact, Miss Maudie and Scout discuss this fact about Atticus as follows:

"'Atticus don't ever do anything to Jem and me in the house that he don't do in the yard. . .'

'Atticus Finch is the same in his house as he is on the public streets'" (46).

In a way, Bob Ewell is also the same at his home as he is in the streets--bad and mean. Atticus on the other hand is good and kind. Then with Mr. Raymond and Miss Gates, there are people who do the right things for the wrong reasons and those who to the wrong things for the right reasons. People are complicated and Harper Lee does a good job showing through her characters the many different levels of good and bad that we all might experience in life. 

Explain two examples of diffusion in living organisms.

Diffusion is the passive movement of particles from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. Particles can be atoms, ions, or molecules. When the particle is a water molecule, the diffusion process is called osmosis. Diffusion continues until the concentration of particles is equal in both areas.

Diffusion and Nerve Cells

First, let’s review a little about nerve cell physiology. A nerve cell is called a neuron. The space between two neurons is called a synapse. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that diffuse across the synapse from the vesicles of one neuron to the receptors of another neuron. As neurotransmitters move from one neuron to another, they travel from an area of higher neurotransmitter concentration to an area of lower neurotransmitter concentration. Therefore, neurotransmitter molecules diffuse across the synapse.

Diffusion and the Placenta

First, let’s review a little about placenta physiology. The placenta enables nutrients, oxygen, and waste products to travel between the mother and the fetus. The blood from the fetus is high in `~CO_2` and waste products, but low in `~O_2` and nutrients. The blood from the mother is high in `~O_2` and nutrients, but low in `~CO_2` and waste products. Therefore, `~CO_2` and waste products will flow across the placenta by diffusion from the fetus to the mother. Similarly, `~O_2` and nutrients will flow across the placenta by diffusion from the mother to the fetus.

1. Jo weighs 500N and is wearing stiletto heels ​which together have an area of 0.0001m​2​. ​What pressure does she exert? 2. Dumbo the...

The weight of an object is the force it exerts due to gravity. Pressure is force per unit area, or force divided by area over which the pressure is exerted.

1. For Jo:

force = 500 N

area = 0.0001 m^2

pressure = F/A = 500N/0.0001m^2 = 5,000,000 N/m^2 or 5000 kPa exerted by Jo's feet.

2. For Dumbo:

force = 50,000 N

area = 0.8m^2

pressure = 50,000N/0.8m^2 = 62,500 N/m^2 or 62.5 kPa exerted by Dumbo's feet. 

3a. Dumbo the elephant exerts the larger force. His weight is 100 times that of Jo.

3b. Jo exerts more pressure, 5,000,000 N/m^2 compared to 62,500 N/m^2 for Dumbo the elephant. The reason Jo can weigh much less yet exert more pressure is because her weight is acting on a much smaller area than Dumbo's.

4. Jo will sink further into the ground because she exerts more pressure on the ground.

A note on pressure unit conversions: One Newton per meter squared is called a Pascal. One kiloPascal, or kPa, is equal to 1000 Pascals.

What lie does Iago tell Roderigo about Desdemona?

In Act II, Iago lies to Roderigo about Desdemona and Cassio. He convinces Roderigo that Desdemona is cheating on Othello with Cassio. This leads to Iago convincing Roderigo to get into a fight with Cassio in the hopes of getting Cassio into trouble, and it works.

"Cassio knows you not. I'll not be far from you. Do you find some occasion to anger Cassio, either by speaking too loud, or tainting his discipline, or from what other course you please, which the time shall more favorably minister" (Act II).

Basically, Iago simply uses the unassuming Roderigo as a pawn in this larger game of chess that he is playing. He knows that Roderigo will be easily swayed and do Iago's bidding. He needs to make Othello dislike Cassio and get Cassio indebted to Desdemona in the hopes of getting his job back.

Ultimately, Roderigo does get into a fight with Cassio, Iago tells Othello, and Cassio is fired. Poor Cassio's misfortunate does not simply end there, though, as Iago continues to advance the rumor that he is cheating with Desdemona, even telling Othello this straight to his face.

What are the Miranda rights?

Generically speaking, the Miranda rights are the rights that need to be read to accused criminals when they are first being taken into custody.  These rights need to be read to the accused before they can be interrogated.  These rights must be read so as to avoid violating the 5th Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment says, in part, that people cannot be forced to incriminate themselves.  In 1966, the Supreme Court decided (in a case called Miranda v. Arizona) that police needed to inform the accused of their rights.  The Court held that interrogating suspects who did not know that they had a right against self-incrimination violated the 5th Amendment.

Today, there are four aspects to Miranda rights.  The accused must be told that:

• They have the right to remain silent.


• Their statements can be used against them in court if they waive this right.


• They have the right to an attorney.


• They have the right to have an attorney provided for them if they cannot afford their own.

Do you think Mme. Forestier should return the difference in value between the original necklace and the one she received as a replacement?

This is an excellent question. It is one which has probably occurred to many readers of "The Necklace" over the years. The fact that we wonder about this question shows the power of Guy de Maupassant's writing. We actually believe these people were real and that Mathilde Loisel actually lost that borrowed necklace one cold night in Paris. There can be no doubt that Madame Forestier has a moral obligation to compensate the Loisels for the difference between the value of the borrowed necklace and that of the imitation. She could do it either by paying them approximately 35,500 francs in cash or by giving them the necklace for 500 francs. The Loisels paid 36,000 francs for the replacement (although with all the interest on the borrowed money, it must have cost them twice that much).

It is impossible, of course, to look back into the past and see what really happened. Even if we could see into the past, we couldn't tell because the characters were fictitious. The best clue we have is in Madame Forestier's reaction to Mathilde's worn appearance and to her revelation of how she and her husband replaced the lost necklace with an imitation.

"I brought you back another exactly like it. And it has taken us ten years to pay for it. You can understand that it was not easy for us, for us who had nothing. At last it is ended, and I am very glad."

"Oh, my poor Mathilde! Why, my necklace was paste! It was worth at most only five hundred francs!"

Since Madame Forestier freely admits that her necklace was made of fake jewels, something she could have kept to herself, it would appear that she has no intention of profiting by her friend's mistake. Madame Forestier might find it hard to get her hands on 35,500 francs, so it seems likely that she would simply make Mathilde a gift of the necklace, which, after all, really belongs to the Loisels and not to her. Mathilde and her husband could at least receive some compensation for their ten years of toil and privation. They could sell the necklace for around 36,000 francs, which would provide them a little comfort and security in their old age.

In Maupassant's short story "The False Gems," also titled "The Jewels" in some translations, we are given a good idea of the purchasing power of 36,000 francs at that time. "Monsieur Lantin, then chief clerk in the Department of the Interior, enjoyed a snug little salary of three thousand five hundred francs...." Since the protagonist of that story is a chief clerk, he is probably earning more than Monsieur Loisel.

The ending of the story raises other questions. What would a rich woman like Madame Forestier be doing with an imitation diamond necklace? Why didn't she tell Mathilde it was a fake when she let her borrow it? How would Mathilde feel now that she realizes she was wearing a paste necklace during her moment of triumph at the Minister of Public Instruction's ball when she thought she was wearing diamonds? How would her husband react when she told him? Would he be angry? Or would he be glad to get the money?

It seems to me that Madame Forestier is not only morally but legally obligated to return the diamond necklace now that she has revealed the truth. The necklace does not really belong to her. At most she could only claim 500 francs for the one that was lost. Maupassant undoubtedly did not want to deal with this issue at the end of his story because it would spoil the shocking effect.

I am opening a French language school for adults in Sweden. The courses will be on beginner and intermediate level. The concept that makes us...

You might begin with a lecture/discussion on how foods get their names. Think, for example, of how animals have English names (cow, pig, sheep, etc.) but the food made from those animals have French names (beef, pork, mutton, etc.); this occurred because of the Norman Invasion – the ruling aristocracy was French, but the serving classes were Anglo-Saxon. As a result, the servants had to learn the French words in order to obey the commands to the kitchen staff from the rulers – boeuf, porque, mouton, etc. Expand this discussion into a study of how French foods are named, what pate di fois gras  or brulee means, where fondue gets its name, etc. You might ask the class to translate a menu from a good French restaurant into English, with appropriate sampling of the food itself. Then you can ask the class to give French names to American and British cuisine, thereby building their vocabulary. Finally you can have taste tests (perhaps at a French restaurant in Sweden) and tell the students to write their reviews in French: magnifique, terrible, etc. (salty, mellow, too much, too little, “I would go back,” etc.). And don’t forget French wines (a lesson on regions and how regions give wines their names).

In The Kite Runner, what is your reaction to Assef's reappearance as the Talib in chapter 22?

I had a confrontational reaction upon learning that Assef is the Talib in Chapter 22.  In reading what was in front of Amir, I had an instinctual feeling that some type of showdown had to take place.

I knew that Assef would be waiting for Amir.  When Amir is reminded at the start of the book that there is a way to be good again, it made sense to me that this moment is where such a reality can be achieved.  When the Talib removes his glasses, my feeling was that Amir can no longer hide from what he must do. When he was a kid, he hid and let Hassan take the abuse from Assef.  However, at this moment, my reaction was that "this is where it is going to end."

A confrontation between both forces was expected.  It made sense that Amir was going to have to take a stand against the evil that people like Assef embodied.  When he recognizes that he has to retrieve Sohrab, my reaction was that some fight was going to be inevitable.  It was not like one could reason with someone like Assef.  Force is the only thing he respects, and my reaction was that Amir is finally going to have his chance to be good again.  

Why did Bud start thinking that going to California wasn't the right thing to do?

In Chapter 8, Bud and Bugs visit a Hooverville where they eat a meal and do the dishes. After the boys finish doing the dishes, they walk back to the main fire, and a man playing a harmonica asks Bud if they will be hopping on the train to Chicago tomorrow. Bud tells him that they plan on getting on the train, and the man tells them to get as much sleep as they can because it is leaving at five-fifteen. Bud and Bugs then climb into a tent with a few other boys to get some sleep, and Bud begins to think. He thinks about the comment Deza's mother made about the poor kids on the road by themselves, blowing like dust in the wind because they really don't have a home. Bud then begins to wonder if going to California is the right thing to do. Bud is worried that he might not know who his family is when he gets out there, but he is willing to try to find them. Fortunately, Bud never makes it out to California, and finds his family in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and they are not who he expects them to be at all.

Did monarchy change after Napoleon?

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire instilled fear in the hearts of every European monarch. Once he was finally removed from power, they sought to prevent this turn of events from ever happening again in Europe. Toward this end, they passed a number of reactionary policies, such as Great Britain's 1815 Corn Law, which secured profits for British nobles and prevented competition from imports.

Such laws--designed to protect the power of the elite--hurt the middle and lower classes by raising food prices. This hurt the poor because they could not afford to survive, and it hurt the middle class businessmen because they were forced to pay their employees higher wages so they could afford food.

Consequently, the middle and lower classes began to team up to attack the European monarchies and aristocracies. This political movement gave poor workers their first taste of political organization, and Karl Marx believed it prepared them to overthrow the middle class, along with the monarchs (as he and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto). Thus, the reactionary policies of the post-Napoleonic European monarchs actually resulted in the Marxist revolutions of 1848.

What does Nick tell his audience he did during most of the summer in The Great Gatsby?

Nick says that the incidents he focuses on in the story "were merely casual events in a crowded summer," and that his "personal affairs" took up far more of his time. He says that most of the time he worked, rising early to travel into New City to his job at the Probity Trust. He would lunch with his coworkers on "little pig sausages and mashed potatoes and coffee." He mentions a "short affair" with a young woman working in another department. 

Nick would often eat dinner at the Yale Club, and then would study investments in the Yale Club library for a "conscientious hour." Afterwards, if the evening were pleasant, he would stroll around New York City, enjoying the constant flow of people. He sometimes would feel lonely and would imagine himself entering into other people's lives "and no one would ever know or disapprove." He also would notice the poorer clerks. 

He mentions losing track of and then taking up again with Jordan Baker. 

From this, we learn that Nick spends most of his time that summer working, being lonely in the big city and dating Jordan. Daisy, Tom and Gatsby are hardly at the center of his life. 

Please find four similes from chapter 1 or 2 in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

Similes are all about comparisons and they make writing interesting and create visual pictures to enable the reader to have a broader understanding of the meaning or significance of something. Similes use the words "like" or "as" in their descriptions, reinforcing similarities between between people, objects or abstract ideas, emphasizing things that may otherwise go unnoticed and sometimes creating similarities where otherwise there would not necessarily be an association. 

In chapter 2 of The Boy in The Striped Pajamas, and having moved away from his beloved Berlin, Bruno is telling Maria (the maid) how much he dislikes the house in this "desolate" place which he mispronounces as "Out-With." When he sees someone come out of his parents' room, he realizes that it is not his father but another man who is not "as tall as" his father. He is comparing (who the reader will later discover is Lieutenant Kotler) with his father. The reader will soon realize that there are not many people who can be compared to Bruno's father.  

A short time later, Bruno, the narrator, notices how Maria stands when a solider passes. She stands "like a person in prayer" and this emphasizes the feeling of fear that pervades the atmosphere when Bruno's father or any military personnel are present. 

A less obvious simile is the comparison between the soldier whom Bruno and Maria have watched coming out of the room and a father. Bruno says that he does not think "that man looks like a father." It is usual to compare a man to being a father but Kotler will be proven to be particularly aggressive and harsh and this statement is preparing the reader by emphasizing Kotler's lack of human qualities. 

Bruno is unable to explain his feelings about the house the family must now live in and so as not to "look like a baby," he tries very hard not to cry when he thinks about having no friends and only his sister Gretel for company. Bruno will later reveal a new level of maturity when he and Shmuel stand together in what is apparently the gas chamber and Bruno senses Shmuel's fear.

In the book, Ender's Game, was Ender a good commander for the Dragon Army?

Yes, Ender was an extraordinary commander of Dragon Army. Before Ender took over, Dragon Army had the reputation across Battle School for losing all of its battles. The name was even considered to be a sign of bad luck for any commander. To make things harder, Ender was given an extremely inexperienced team. He had practically no veteran students to use as leaders. Regardless of these disadvantages, however, Ender was able to create a new set of strategies, including creating smaller teams, and encouraging Bean to use his experimental tactics with wires. This allowed Ender to build a team that was never defeated, not even when the Battle School leadership put the army against unfair odds. Ender was even able to lead Dragon Army to defeat multiple armies in a single day. 

How many grams of NaOH do you add to 1.0 Liter of water to make a 12.0 Molar (M) solution?

In order to determine how many grams of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) one must add to 1 Liter of water to make a 12.0 M solution, one must first know the molar mass of NaOH, and how to determine molarity.

In this case, the molar mass of NaOH is 39.997 grams/mole. The formula for molarity is:

Molarity (M)=moles solute/Liters solution

Since the final molarity of our solution is to be made in 1 Liter of water, one must calculate how many grams of the solute, in this case NaOH, to add to 1 Liter of water, in this case the solution, to create a 12.0 M solution. 

In order to make a 12 M solution, one must first realize that a 1 M solution, where 1 mole of solute is placed in 1 Liter of solution, of NaOH would be made by adding 39.997 grams to 1 Liter of water. This is because the molar mass of NaOH is 39.997 grams/mole. Knowing this, it can be determined that in order to make a 12 M solution in 1 Liter of water, you simply multiply the molar mass by 12 and add that mass to 1 Liter of water to make a 12 M solution.

It is important to note that in this example, one is really multiplying by 12 moles/1 Liter of water because that is the volume the final solution calls for. If for example, the question asked for a 12 M solution in 0.5 liter of water, one would multiply the molar mass by 12 moles/0.5 liters. 

Based on this information, one can calculate that they would need to add 479.964 grams of NaOH to 1 liter of water to make a 12 M solution. Hope this helps!

Where is the direct object in the sentence? Jessica's family will take a trip soon. Where is the direct object in that?

The direct object in this sentence is "a trip."  In order to find a direct object, we must always look at the verb or verb phrase and see what the action of the verb is acting upon. In this case, the verb is "will take." What is going to be taken?  It is a trip that is going to be taken. 

Let's look at a few more examples.

In this sentence, the direct object is "home."

We are going home now.

The verb phrase is "are going."  What is this verb acting upon? It is acting upon "home."  Another way of explaining this is to say that "home" takes the action of the verb. 

In this sentence, the direct object is "the book." 

He took the book back to the library.

The verb is "took." What is taking the action of this verb? It is the book that is taking the action, the book that is being acted upon. 

What is the main point of the book War Without Mercy?

War Without Mercy by John W. Dower takes a look at the relationship between the U.S. and Japan during WWII through a controversial viewpoint. Dower claims it was racism that drew the war to such a brutal close. Instead of offering more complicated explanations of the events during WWII, Dower focuses on prejudice as the key influencer. 

Dower explains that because the enemy was seen as "subhuman" from both sides of the war, there was a higher amount of civilian deaths. Both the U.S. and the Japanese negatively stereotyped each other, which was perpetuated by their respective news media outlets. As stereotypes of both countries grew more prevalent, so did tensions.

The book explains that the dehumanization of fellow human beings directly causes unnecessary violence, using conflict between the U.S. and Japan during WWII as evidence. War Without Mercy explains that racism, prejudice, and stereotyping is the root of it all.

In Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, what is Marlow's attitude towards Africa?

In Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, Marlow confesses to loving maps as a boy and hankering after the excitement of travel and adventure. During the description of his boyhood travel fantasies, Marlow references his fascination with Africa, what he calls "a blank space" (14). However, Marlow recognizes that, by the time he was ready to venture to Africa, "it had become a place of darkness" (14).

Throughout the book, it's apparent that Marlow thinks of Africa as a place of darkness. He sees it as a place that harkens back to the darker essence of a more primitive humanity. For example, he says that traveling on the "river was like traveling back to the earliest beginnings of the world" (84). Additionally, Marlow regards the vast wilderness of the Congo with a deep unease. At one point, he notes that "the great wall of vegetation... was like a rioting invasion of soundless life... ready to topple over the creek, to sweep every little man of us out of his little existence" (74). In short, it's clear that Marlow views the African wilderness as a menacing and violent force that echoes the dark beginnings of the human race. 

It's important to recognize that these sentiments have significant racist undertones. Marlow's theory that Africa is a reflection of primitive humanity functions upon the assumption that the cultures in Africa are inferior to his own and represent a "primitive" version of humanity. Thus, while Marlow does not exhibit the overt racism of some of his colleagues, he does possess subtly racist beliefs. 

How is Curley's wife a predatory character?

Curley's wife can be read as a predatory character in her use of her sexual allure to get what she wants. She clearly feels trapped and confined by her small life after her marriage to Curley, and so she uses her looks and sensuality to flirt with the ranch hands in order to make Curley jealous. This also allows her to exert some control over other people, as Curley tends to beat up anyone who looks too long at his wife. She is also not afraid to verbally prey on the weaker members of the ranch, saying cringe-worthy things to them, like when she tells Crooks, "I could get you strung up on a tree so easily it ain't even funny." Clearly, she makes herself feel better by putting others down.

Still, a critique of this analysis is that, for a predatory character, Curley's wife has no real power in the novel. Like most of the other characters, she is a beaten-down person, clinging to old dreams. In Curley's wife's case, the old dream is to be a Hollywood star, something that she may have accomplished with her good looks but which is now way out of her reach. She has no power over her circumstances and no control over her life; she doesn't even have her own name, as she is simply referred to as Curley's possession. So, even though she is a temptress, she is also preyed on by the cruel social circumstances that keep the other characters down.

What is the difference between immigration law and immigration policy?

Most simply put, the difference between immigration law and immigration policy is that immigration law determines the legality of immigration and immigration policy is the attitude or attitudes expressed by political leaders. The interplay of the two can be quite interesting as policy may inform when and how the law is applied.

Immigration law is the body of law that pertains to the regulation of the admission, residency, and deportation of foreign nationals. In the United States, federal immigration law preempts state law, which means that the individual states do not create their own immigration law. Thus, immigration law in the U.S. is derived from the U.S. Constitution, treaties, the federal code, and the federal common law. The actual application of federal immigration law is governed by the U.S. Federal Regulations (administrative law), and the enforcement of immigration law is within the scope of federal agencies. All of these, from the laws to the regulations to the enforcement thereof, are aspects of immigration law.

Immigration policy may refer to a variety things, from a nebulous societal construct to the specific policy of the current executive. In the context of the interplay between immigration law and immigration policy, it is probably best to focus on the policy of the executive branch of the government.

As noted above, immigration law is enforced by federal agencies. These agencies are part of the executive branch of the federal government. The immigration policy of the executive branch influences the interpretation and the enforcement of the law by such agencies. It may even affect the administrative law aspect of immigration law, as the agencies, not the legislative branch, are responsible for crafting and modifying the federal regulations that control how federal agencies apply the laws.

So while immigration law and immigration policy are two distinctive things, they work together to determine how the government actually handles immigration issues. The laws provide the legal structure whereas the policy provides the guidance to federal agencies on how they are to interpret and enforce the law.  

What states in south America did Christopher Columbus claim for Spain?

During his third voyage to the New World, Christopher Columbus sailed further south than he had previously visited. The first land of modern-day South America his fleet sighted was Trinidad. Columbus' ships sailed along the southern coast before landing at Icacos Point. He soon set off again and sailed in the Gulf of Paria and the Orinoco River of Venezuela. He made land in mainland South America at the Paria Peninsula. From accounts of this third voyage, we know that he claimed modern-day Venezuela for Spain, and presumably Trinidad as well. It is hard to say how far Columbus expected his claim for Spain to extend into the continent, especially with challenges from native populations.

What is the point of view in "The Monkey's Paw?" Provide textual support for proof.

To start with, we can tell that the point of view in “The Monkey’s Paw” is some sort of third person point of view.  We know this because the narrator in this story constantly refers to the characters by name and by pronouns like “he” and “them.”  This shows that the story is not being narrated in the first person.

There are different types of third person points of view.  The point of view depends on how much the narrator “knows.”  If the narrator can only “know” what they can see, the point of view is third person objective.  Sometimes, however, the narrator knows more than he or she can see.  The narrator knows what people are thinking or feeling.  If the narrator knows this, but only about one character, the point of view is third person limited omniscient.  However, if the narrator has access to the thoughts and feelings of all of the characters, the point of view is third person omniscient.

In “The Monkey’s Paw,” the point of view is third person omniscient.  The narrator does not use their omniscience very often, but it is there.  For example, at the beginning of the story, we know why Mr. White talks about how the wind is blowing.  He does that because

He had made a serious mistake and wanted to distract his son’s attention so that he wouldn’t see it.

The narrator could not know this without having access to Mr. White’s thoughts.  Later, we see that the narrator knows what others are thinking as well.  The narrator knows what Mrs. White thinks during the day after Mr. White wishes for the money.  We are told that “she didn’t believe that the talisman could grant wishes” but that when the postman came to the door “she was disappointed that it was only a bill.”  From these passages, we can see that the narrator has access to the thoughts of more than one character.  Therefore, the point of view in this story is third person omniscient.

How does John Steinbeck's "The Chrysanthemums" begin?

The story begins in the Salinas Valley, which is pretty common in several of Steinbeck's stories. Elisa is planting her beloved chrysanthemums when her husband comes to speak with her after he made a deal selling some head of cattle to the Western Meat Company. His delight at receiving "nearly his price" for the cattle is contrasted with the passion that Elisa has with her chrysanthemums. They're perfect - nearly 10 inches across - and require much attention to detail. The story states that they "seemed too small and easy for her energy," and it's clear that Elisa has bigger dreams than simply planting chrysanthemums every year - but right now, the chrysanthemums are what she pours that passion into. This brief interaction between Elisa and Henry shows the reader that Henry doesn't quite get Elisa's true desires in life - he doesn't understand that maintaining the flower bed isn't enough for her to be happy. This interaction sets the stage for Elisa's conversation with the traveling salesman and desire to speak to just about anyone about her passion.

Who (specifically) was in the conspiracy that killed Caesar? Were Cincinatus and Cicero in the conspiracy?

Since it happened so long ago and the conspirators tried to cover their tracks, we are not completely certain who all was involved. There may have been as many as 60 members of the Roman Senate involved.

We are fairly confident that Marcus Junius Brutus (of "Et tu, Brute?" fame, though this quote is apocryphal) was a major conspirator, as well as Gaius Cassius Longinus. We think that Publius Servilius Casca struck the first blow. I've also linked a paper that lists several of the other conspirators for which we have good evidence.

While Cicero was no fan of Caesar, we have no evidence that he was actually involved in the conspiracy to assassinate him. Cicero supported Augustus as Emperor.

While many held the surname Cincinnatus, we have no evidence of any of them being involved in the assassination, and the most famous one, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, had been dead for almost 400 years when Caesar was killed.

How do we calculate the century effectively?

A century is defined mathematically is the value of '100'. A century is used mainly when we speak about year's and also used in the sport cricket. In cricket if a player scores 100 runs, it means he made a century and is considered to be a milestone. 

Commonly we are asked in what century we live in. In order to calculate this we divide the year by 100. drop the decimals and add 1. 

Let's demonstrate this by an example: 

If we had to calculate the century in the year 1960 is, it will be done as follows: 

`1960/100 = 19.6`

Now we have to drop the decimals:

`19`

Now we have to add "one' to determine the century we in: 

century the year 1960 is = 

Therefor the year 1960 was in the 20th century. 

Can you provide some examples of flattery in The Great Gilly Hopkins?

Occasions of flattery are peppered throughout the story of The Great Gilly Hopkins. Probably the most prevalent examples occur at the dining table, when Mr. Randolph lavishly praises Mrs. Trotter's cooking. Almost every meal that they share together includes Mr. Randolph telling Mrs. Trotter that it is the most delicious food he has ever had the pleasure to eat. Though a form of flattery, Mr. Randolph's compliments seem to stem from a genuine place of appreciation at being included in the cherished setting of family mealtime.

At another point in the book we see flattery of a different sort. Gilly makes William Ernest a paper airplane as part of her plan to obtain his unknowing assistance in stealing money from Mr. Randolph's house. As William Ernest flies the plane, Gilly oohs and aahs over his skill and technique, at one point even asking if he has taken lessons to learn how to fly a paper airplane so well. Again, this is all part of her ploy to gain his trust.

How does the lottery affect Tessie Hutchinson and her family at the end of the story? How is this a good example of how the plot can influence...

Near the end of "The Lottery," Bill Hutchinson draws the slip with the black spot in the first round, which means that someone in his family will be stoned to death. This immediately begins to cause friction within the family and between Bill's wife Tessie and some of people in the assembled crowd. Although Tessie is the most voluble, the reader can sense that all the members of the Hutchinson family are starting to worry about their own personal welfare and are no longer a cohesive family unit. This is a good example of how the plot can influence the characters, because it would have been the same with any other family if a different head of family had drawn the black spot.

Tessie begin to protest before the second drawing begins.

Suddenly, Tessie Hutchinson shouted to Mr. Summers, "You didn't give him time enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn't fair!"

"Be a good sport, Tessie," Mrs. Delacroix called, and Mrs. Graves said, "All of us took the same chance."

"Shut up, Tessie," Bill Hutchinson said.

As the head of the Hutchinson family, Bill feels responsible for keeping his wife and children in order. This is the point where the reader begins to realize the deadly seriousness of the lottery. Tessie won't shut up. She reveals a ruthless streak in her nature by trying to draw more people into danger.

"There's Don and Eva," Mrs. Hutchinson yelled. "Make them take their chance!"

Eva is the Hutchinsons' married daughter. Tessie seems willing to sacrifice anyone rather than be that year's scapegoat, but all the members of her family are feeling the same way, and all the people in the crowd are feeling vast relief that they are safe for another year. They are looking at Tessie with cold eyes. Nothing she could think of to say would have any effect on them.

One by one, the Hutchinsons draw their slips in the second round. Tessie seems to sense intuitively that she is destined to pick the black spot. Mr. Graves has to help little Davie Hutchinson draw his slip because he is too young to understand what is going on.

Mr. Graves opened the slip of paper and there was a general sigh through the crowd as he held it up and everyone could see that it was blank. Nancy and Bill. Jr. opened theirs at the same time, and both beamed and laughed, turning around to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads.

"Tessie," Mr. Summers said. There was a pause, and then Mr. Summers looked at Bill Hutchinson, and Bill unfolded his paper and showed it. It was blank.

Nancy and Bill, Jr. beam and laugh. This is rather horrible. They are only thinking about themselves and not about the fact that it will either be their father or their mother who has drawn the fatal slip. Not only that, but they seem unperturbed by the knowledge that they will be expected to participate in the finale. By this point the reader knows what to expect. All those stones could only have been gathered for one purpose. Tessie has attended many of these lotteries in the past and knows what it looks like when several hundred people stone one cowering man, woman or child to death. There is a frenzy that surges through the pitiless crowd. They all want to participate in what might be called "the moment of truth," to borrow a term from bullfighting.

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