What is implied by "the Monsigneur could swallow a great many things with ease" in A Tale of Two Cities?

The statement that the Monsigneur, who is one of the powerful lords in the Royal Court, is able "to swallow a great many things with ease" is satiric as it mocks the powerful lord who is able to live with the starvation of the peasants and other cruelties dealt to them, but he cannot swallow his morning chocolate without the aid of no less than four servants.

Further, Dickens satirizes Monseigneur's insistence upon these four servants to serve him as he ingests his chocolate. 

Deep would have been the blot upon his escutcheon if his chocolate had been ignobly waited on by only three men; he must have died of two.

Here, too, Dickens ridicules Monseigneur’s reverence for the symbol of what the lord believes his inherent nobility, the escutcheon, with comments upon the Monseigneur's ridiculous fear that he might harm his reputation if he is not sufficiently flamboyant in this frivolous act of taking his morning's chocolate.

The Devil's Arithmetic opens with what event, and why is it important to Hannah's family?

Passover Seder is important to Hannah’s family because it is about remembering people they lost during the Holocaust.

The novel opens with Passover Seder, and this is an important Jewish holiday.  Hannah does not want to go, because she and her brother will be the only kids there.  She does not understand the importance of the holiday, and its significance to her family.  Hannah thinks all holidays are alike.

"Passover isn't about eating, Hannah," her mother began at last, sighing and pushing her fingers up through her silver-streaked hair.

"You could have fooled me," Hannah muttered.

"It's about remembering." (Ch. 1)

The holiday is about remembering family members and friends that were lost during the Holocaust in World War II.  This was a significant event where almost every Jewish family lost someone.  The Nazis rounded up people in Germany and elsewhere in Europe and systematically exterminated as many as they could, killing millions.

Hannah has grown up hearing about the Holocaust, but she never really understood it.  The Holocaust had a huge impact on her family, but the meaning is lost on her.  She doesn't appreciate it because it is something she has always known but never understood.

You have to remember how much family means to them. Grandma lost both her parents to the Nazis before she and her brother managed to escape. And Grandpa . . ."

"I remember. I remember. . . ," Hannah whispered.

". . . Will lost everyone but your Aunt Eva. A family of eight all but wiped out." (Ch. 1)

Hannah is about to get an understanding of what actually happened and what the Holocaust was like.  She goes down a sort of magical rabbit hole into World War II.  She learns more about her namesake, Aunt Eva’s friend, who died in the camps.

Sometimes it is difficult for children to appreciate the significance of holidays.  One holiday can run into the next.  Passover Seder is important for Hannah’s family because it is an important Jewish holiday, but also because it is about remembering who they lost when they lost so much.

In "A Christmas Memory," what does the phrase "rather like hearts, a lost pair of kites hurrying towards heaven" communicate about Capote's...

Truman Capote describes his raw emotions at the end of his short story “A Christmas Memory.” He writes, “As if I expected to see, rather like hearts, a lost pair of kites hurrying toward heaven.” At this point in the story, Buddy is away at military school when his friend dies.

Earlier in the story, Capote describes how the pair escapes the frustration of Christmas morning by flying their homemade kites in a nearby pasture. It is one of those times that Buddy treasures, and holds dear in his heart. They are a pair of lost souls who find comfort in simply spending time together.

The pair shared such a deep connection that Buddy feels her passing even before he receives a message confirming it. With his friend’s passing, Buddy is broken-hearted. He feels that a part of him is taken, “letting it loose like a kite on a broken string.” As he walks across the campus, he looks heavenward and imagines that he might see the two kites that are symbolic of their relationship ascending heavenward.

What are the antagonizing forces in "The Management of Grief" by Bharati Mukherjee?

Instead of having a typical villain, the antagonists of "The Management of Grief" are all abstract. Cultures, stereotypes, and expectations all plague the protagonist, Mrs. Shaila Bhave, as she learns of and attempts to cope with the loss of her husband and sons in a politically-motivated airplane bombing. 

One such antagonizing force comes from the title: the expectation that grief is something to be managed and overcome by a strong-willed survivor. Even though Shaila seems just the type to recover most easily (she is identified as one of the survivors who took the news in the "best" way), she finds herself completely passive in the face of her grief. Rather than being able to manage and actively work her way through her grief, she can only experience it, allowing herself to be pulled along the necessary steps of grief without any corresponding feeling of recovery. This expectation is exemplified in the character of social worker Judith Templeton and her expectations for how the survivors might go about managing their grief. She describes the widowed women as "hysterical" and "a real mess," demonstrating her lack of true empathy and understanding of their loss and cultural reaction to it, as discussed below. 

Another antagonizing force is the clash of Indian and Canadian cultures. As Indians living in Canada during the tragedy, many of the survivors have felt this clash of cultures for a long time, and characters like Shaila and Kusum have felts their children moving further away from them and their roots and further towards Western culture, as shown with Kusum's argument with her Westernized daughter, Pam. However, Shaila herself feels more of this cross-cultural push and pull after the tragedy. While Westerners like Judith Templeton are impressed with Shaila's calm acceptance of the tragedy, Shaila points out that her fellow Indians expect her to mourn loudly and publicly and the calm she feels is unnerving to her. At the same time, however, she mourns the fact that upper class Indian expectations kept her from telling her husband she loved him or speaking his first name. An Indian living in a Western world, Shaila is challenged by both cultures in the face of this tragedy.

A third "antagonizing force" is the Sikh religion and culture. Even though Shaila was brought up in a progressive household and was taught not to generalize and stereotype others (especially after experiencing this herself in the West), she still cannot help but blame Sikhs for the death of her husband and sons. She says, "I stiffen now at the sight of beards and turbans,’’ referring to the dress and hairstyle of Sikh men. This antagonism is not only Shaila vs. Sikhs, but Shaila vs. a part of her that wants to simplify the tragedy by blaming it on an easily-identifiable group of people. This conflict within herself is one of the most relevant in our post 9/11 world.

What is the effect of half of the last chapter of Madame Bovary, including the last two paragraphs of the novel, being devoted to the pharmacist...

In Madame Bovary, the overall effect of devoting so much of the ending to Homais is to enhance the novel's Realism. 

Flaubert's commitment to Realism in Madame Bovary is seen throughout the novel.  The characterization of Flaubert dissecting his heroine is best seen in the novel's ending.  There is not a glorification of Emma or a beautiful conclusion where all is unified.  He avoids Romanticism and idealism in all of its forms.  Rather, the ending of the novel has nothing to do with Emma at all.  Rather, the focus is on Charles's degradation and on how his daughter ends up having to work for a living after he dies.  At the same time, Monsieur Homais's social status rises.  He is able to achieve great things and to move up the social ladder as the Bovary name declines.  The ending where he is awarded the Legion of Honor represents his own ascension.

The effect of this Realist construction is significant.  On one hand, the reader perceives the hollow emptiness.  There is a certain anticlimactic emptiness in watching characters in a novel meet an abrupt end without any sort of dramatic resolution.  The lack of glory in such an ending underscores Flaubert's commitment to Realism, a movement that wanted to depict life as it is.  In real life, bad things happen and what makes it worse is that human beings have no choice but to move on.  There is no mourning or elaborate death scene for Emma.  She simply is "no more."  That's it. Flaubert's realism creates a chilling effect in the reader.  After spending so much time with characters, the ending makes the reader understand one true horror of life is that we are temporary creatures.  The only certainty in our lives is death.  Despite all of our hopes and dreams to create a garden, the reality that underscores our existence is that only a desert awaits.

Flaubert's realism does not stop here.  In highlighting Homais's rise, Flaubert's commitment to depicting reality in his work shows that there are times when bad people win.  Homais is an opportunist who is looking out for himself.  His desire to ascend up the social ladder is similar to Emma's. However, he is smarter.  He tapped into social causes that appealed to people and was able to use these as his means for advancement.  His embrace of "science" and "rationality" played well for him because it was socially accepted.  The effect of this rise is to affect the reader with a perception of disgust at his manipulation of success.  A chilling effect emerges because Flaubert uses Homais's rise to show a world where conformity and standardization have become dominant.  In devoting the final chapter to Homais's ascension, the effect is to a perception of despair at what lies ahead.  True to Realism, Flaubert deliberately provides nothing comforting to the reader in his ending as real life offers nothing comforting in the end.

What does the novel To Kill a Mockingbird say about courage? How did Tom Robinson exhibit courage in his role in the story?

In To Kill A Mockingbird, Tom Robinson was a man of courage in the face of Mayella Ewell's struggles. Tom walked by the Ewell home daily on his way to and from work. He came to know that Mayella had a hard life with little help from her brothers or father. He noticed that Mayella was the only one who seemed to care about her appearance or environment. Also, she was friendly and spoke to Tom as he passed by her house. Tom felt sorry for Mayella. After Mayella asked for his help, he chose to help her when she was trying to break apart the chifforobe or heavy wardrobe.

Tom knew that he could be wrongly accused for helping a white women during this prejudiced time frame. Maycomb was a racist town and would not approve of a black man such as Tom helping a white young woman. Nevertheless, Tom exhibited great courage because he chose to help Mayella. Tom had a big heart filled with compassion for someone like Mayella who was less fortunate in her upbringing. Her father and brothers did not help her maintain the house or yard.

Tom noticed Mayella's strength and determination to do the job herself. He courageously walked in her yard to help her with a man's task. The chifforobe was a heavy piece of wooden furniture. Tom had the decency to try and assist  her in breaking it apart. It took great courage for a black man to even enter a white man's environment or yard. Tom put himself in great danger by choosing to help Mayella. No doubt, Tom knew the danger of his actions. He displayed great courage in putting his concerns aside. He was brave in deciding to help Mayella. 

Ultimately, Tom risked his life because he thought that helping Mayella was the right thing to do. Out of pity for Mayella, he courageously walked into her yard and began helping her with a difficult task. Tom made a courageous choice. This led to Tom being wrongly convicted of raping Mayella. Bob Ewell and Mayella claimed Tom had raped her. Tom was shot and killed while trying to escape imprisonment because he was innocent.

What factors show that Framton's visit to Mrs. Sappleton might have worsened his nerve problem?

Framton Nuttel is an example of a character who is created to suit the purposes of the author's plot. Young Vera's practical joke would not be as effective on a man in normal health. Saki takes pains to emphasize that Framton is only here at the Sappleton's because of his bad nerves, or neurosis, as we would say in modern times. He was told by his doctors, who were in complete agreement, that he needed a "rest cure" in the country, and then his sister gave him some letters of introduction which brought him to this zany country establishment. The whole point of Saki's story is that Framton's nerve cure only made his nerves worse. 

"The doctors agree in ordering me complete rest, an absence of mental excitement, and avoidance of anything in the nature of violent physical exercise," announced Framton, who laboured under the tolerably widespread delusion that total strangers and chance acquaintances are hungry for the least detail of one's ailments and infirmities, their cause and cure. 

He is supposed to get complete rest, yet he ends up running for dear life down the country road. He is supposed to have an absence of mental excitement, yet Vera provides more mental excitement than he has ever had before when she makes him believe he may have three ghosts with shotguns chasing him. He is supposed to avoid anything in the nature of violent physical exercise, yet he disappears from the story like this:

Framton grabbed wildly at his stick and hat; the hall door, the gravel drive, and the front gate were dimly noted stages in his headlong retreat. A cyclist coming along the road had to run into the hedge to avoid imminent collision.

So if Framton's doctors are correct in their diagnoses and prescriptions, his nerve problem must indeed have been worsened. 

It is probably significant that he didn't say anything about his nerve problem to Vera. If she had known about it, she might not have made him the victim of her ghost story. Not that she would have been too much concerned about Framton as that she would have been concerned about herself if their guest died of fright.

Vera is another example of a character who is created to suit the plot, as is Mrs. Sappleton. Vera is a very "self-possessed" young lady. She is just old enough to be believed and just young enough to think of pulling such a trick. When she deliberately loses her self-possession, the contrast between her tranquil demeanor and her look of "dazed horror" is so effective that it is responsible for making Framton panic and flee into the night. Mrs. Sappleton has become almost as nutty as Nuttel. She hears nothing but male talk about shooting birds, and so Vera knows she will talk about that subject when she meets her guest.

She rattled on cheerfully about the shooting and the scarcity of birds, and the prospects for duck in the winter. To Framton it was all purely horrible.

Vera is not only a creative story-teller but an actress and stage director. She even knows that Ronnie is going to burst out singing, "I said, Bertie, why do you bound?" How could Framton suspect he was being set up? Even if he should find out that Vera's story was a complete hoax, he may never be the same again.

Where was technology frequently used during the Industrial Revolution?

During the Industrial Revolution, technology was used. It was used most often in factories, on farms, and in the area of transportation.

Factories began to use machines to make products. These machines helped to increase production. The machines made it easier and quicker to produce various items. The spinning jenny allowed factory workers to make clothes much faster. The increased production helped business owners increase profits.

Farmers used machines to help produce and harvest crops. The steel-tipped plow made it easier to plow the soil. The mechanical reaper made it easier to harvest crops. The seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds deeper into the ground. The cotton gin made it easier to separate the seeds from the cotton. As a result, production of crops increased.

The steam engine helped improve transportation. The steam engine powered boats. This made it easier for people and for products to travel on water. The steam engine also helped the railroads grow. This made it easier to travel by land.

New forms of technology had a significant impact on our country and on the world.

How did the colonists change the Igbo language?

In Chinua Acbebe’s Things Fall Apart, the invasive colonial influence present in Umuofia changes a number of aspects of traditional Igbo culture. Interestingly, while Achebe does not explicitly mention that the colonists change the language within Umuofia, upon closer examination, it becomes obvious that they do in fact impact the language. One scene that I argue illustrates this change occurs halfway through the novel when white Christian settlers describe their religion to the Igbo through an interpreter:

“After the singing the interpreter spoke about the Son of God whose name was Jesu Kristi.... The missionary ignored him and went on to talk about the Holy Trinity. At the end of it Okonkwo was fully convinced that the man was mad. He shrugged his shoulders and went away to tap his afternoon palm-wine” (146-7).

While Okonkwo and the Igbo clan are derisive toward the missionaries, the fact remains that “Jesu Kristi” becomes part of the Igbo lexicon. Similarly, when white settlers introduce European models of government to the region, these institutions and their English names become ingrained with the culture. For example, the District Commissioner is consistently called the District Commissioner by Igbo individuals, so this name has entered Igbo vocabulary.

These are just two subtle ways in which white settlers affect the Igbo language.

I need help starting an essay I'm writing in response to the following prompt: Romeo and Juliet are referred to as "star cross'd lovers."...

I think you might start by discussing two key issues of context. The first is astrological. The notion of "star-crossed" lovers has to do with the idea that stars, because they are part of the superlunary heavens (part of the Heavens beyond the orbit of the moon rather than merely part of the mutable human world), are in some way close to God and can be examined to learn of the future he has predestined. This synthesizes pagan astrology (which saw the stars as signs of the gods' will) and Christianity. A good starting point might be this article on astrology and superstition in Shakespeare. I'd strongly recommend as well E. M. W. Tillyard's The Elizabethan World Picture, a short book available on Kindle or in cheap paperback editions that gives a very readable account of the chain of being and other elements of Shakespeare's world view.

After you have addressed astrology, your next big issue is that of predestination. Because of the synthesis of Aristotle and the Bible in Christian doctrine by the Scholastics, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, the question of free will and predestination is often formulated in terms of the issue of future contingents. The Prologue says:

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

...  Do with their death bury their parents' strife. 

Since this comes at the start of the play, we know that the play ends with the lovers' deaths. If this information is indeed prior to the actions of the lovers, then the lovers appear to have no free will at all; they are fated to die. This causes a major problem for Christian morality. If all our acts are fated (by God), it seems unjust that God punishes us for acts over which we have no choice. On the other hand, if we have free will, that seems to contradict the notion of divine omnipotence. The official position of the Church of England (the official religion of England in Shakespeare's period) is set out in the Thirty-Nine Articles; in your paper you might want to look at Articles X and XVII which discuss freewill and predestination as a context for interpreting this issue. 

How was Tom killed? What is the explanation for Tom's attempted escape?

In chapter 24 we learn of Tom's death. After he was found guilty of raping Mayella, Tom is sent to prison. Atticus had reassured him that he believed he could win the appeal. However, Tom knew that being a black convicted of a crime against a white woman, that he stood no real chance of winning an appeal. Tom decided that escaping was his only way to freedom.

Atticus goes to get Calpurnia and tells her, Scout and Aunt Alexandra what had happened. 

"They shot him," said Atticus. "He was running. It was during their exercise period. They said he just broke into a blind raving charge at the fence and started climbing over. Right in front of them-"

"Didn't they try to stop him? Didn't they give him any warning?" Aunt Alexandra's voice shook.

"Oh yes, the guards called to him to stop. They fired a few shots in the air, then to kill. They got him just as he went over the fence, They said if he'd had two good arms he'd have made it, he was moving that fast. Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much. Cal, I want you to come out me and help me tell Helen."

The guards try to say that they warned Tom to stop but he didn't. The fact that they shot him seventeen times is a really good indication that what they guards were saying wasn't true. Tom was just another black person to them.

What is Fitzgerald's purpose in contrasting the images of "hard rock" and "wet marshes" in the following passage from The Great Gatsby? "And,...

In this passage from The Great Gatsby, Nick employs contrasting metaphors to explore the lack of morality present in the Old Money characters, particularly Daisy and Tom Buchanan, whose "careless" behavior Nick rebukes at the end of the novel.

The phrase “Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes” is a metaphor that explores two different foundations, like that of a building. Conduct, or, as Nick implies here, behavior based on morals, can be solid and unshakeable if founded on “hard rock,” while the conduct of those who have it founded on “wet marshes” really lack a moral compass.

Throughout the novel, Daisy, Tom and Jordan Baker exert a certain carelessness about their activities. Tom flaunts his affair with a poor woman and doesn’t care about smashing her nose in when she upsets him. Daisy jumps right into an affair with Gatsby without concern for how it will affect those around her. (It’s interesting to note that Nick does not hold Gatsby to the same moral standards as Daisy despite him engaging in just as immoral behavior.) Jordan explains that she's a “rotten driver” but that other people will “keep out of [her] way,” so she doesn't have to be more careful.

At the end of the novel, Nick explains the result of these characters’ conduct that was built on “wet marshes”: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and people and retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let others clean up the mess they made . . .”

Nick, meanwhile, seems to believe his conduct was built on “solid rock,” but this belief is hard to justify as he was implicit in his approval of Daisy’s, Gatsby’s and Tom’s behavior throughout. Unfortunately for Nick, his behavior seems to be built on the same “wet marshes” as the others major characters.

What is the name of Bob Ewell's daughter in To Kill a Mockingbird?

The name of Bob Ewell's daughter is Mayella Violet Ewell. She is an important character in To Kill a Mockingbird because she caused Tom Robinson to be arrested and put on trial for rape. Her false accusation leads to Tom's death when he tries to escape from custody. During the trial, Atticus makes Mayella and her father look foolish and unscrupulous. Bob Ewell feels such resentment toward Atticus that he later decides to kill both of Atticus' children, Jem and Scout, in revenge. During his murder attempt, Ewell is killed when Boo Radley comes out of his self-imposed isolation and saves the kids. Bob Ewell is killed during the assault, and it is pretty evident Boo Radley is responsible. All of these events occur because of Mayella's attempt to seduce Tom Robinson.

Why is Romeo so in love with Juliet, and why would Romeo's lock screen be a picture of her if there were phones back then?

Romeo is instantly in love with Juliet as soon as he sees her, but figuring out why isn’t easy. They don’t really get to know each other at all; they are instantly, desperately in love. There is no sense of building interest or attraction; they simply are unaware of each other’s existence and then, suddenly, willing to die for each other.

How credible this seems to you will depend on whether you think “love at first sight” is truly possible. Some people swear they’ve fallen in love almost instantaneously, others insist that it’s impossible to truly love someone you barely know. Attraction works mysteriously, but don’t look for Shakespeare to explain too much about it: he’s okay with portraying love as something that strikes like a bolt of lightning, irrationally, and doesn’t spend time articulating why.

What seems strange to the horse in "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening?"

Robert Frost has been quoted as saying:

Everything written is as good as it is dramatic. It need not declare itself in form, but it is drama or nothing.

This explains a lot about his poetry. In "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" he is describing the kind of snowy scene that often appears on Christmas cards. It is silent, peaceful, and beautiful, like the song "Silent Night." Yet Frost intentionally makes the poem dramatic by injecting a note of mystery. Why is he stopping here? First he thinks about the man whose woods he has stopped to admire.

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

Why should the poet be concerned about being seen sitting there in his sleigh looking at the man's trees?

Then the poet's horse seems to be reprimanding him for stopping here on a cold, dark night. Even a dumb animal knows he should be heading for home, where there is shelter and warmth for both man and animal.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

The horse is thoroughly familiar with this route. They have been over it back and forth countless times. The poet has evidently driven into the village to pick up supplies and do some last-minute Christmas shopping. He often stops at farm houses along the way just to say hello to friends, warm his hands at their fireplace, have a drink, and perhaps to ask if they need anything in the village. What bothers the horse is that there is no farmhouse nearby. So why are they stopping?

The poet cannot explain either to the owner of the woods or to his horse that he is stopping because of the striking beauty of the sight of the trees being covered with the slowly drifting snow. Since this is late December, the deciduous trees in New Hampshire, where the poem is set, would all be bare. The poet must be stopping to look at fir trees. Their stiff, horizontal evergreen branches easily catch the falling snowflakes, and they quickly turn a dazzling white.

The poet is concerned about the owner of these woods seeing him sitting here because he knows the owner would not understand that he is simply admiring their beauty. Fir trees are grown for sale as Christmas trees all over New Hampshire. But the rural residents, like the poet, do not buy their trees off lots in town. They just go out and cut down a sapling. That is what the owner would suspect the poet of contemplating. Maybe--as a matter of fact--the poet does have that in the back of his mind. It is just a couple of days until Christmas and he doesn't have a tree.

His horse breaks the spell by jingling his harness-bells. The poet is reminded that he still has a long way to go before he can get warm and go to sleep. He has responsibilities, including a responsibility to this little horse. He cannot continue sitting there meditating--but perhaps he has taken as much out of the beautiful scene as he was able to take. The experience results in one of Robert Frost's most popular poems.

How does Santiago show perseverance in The Old Man and the Sea?

Santiago experiences many internal and external conflicts during his struggle with the marlin. The obvious external struggle is the struggle for life and death as he fights to catch the marlin. One of his internal struggles is his struggle between perseverance and giving up. During his battle with the marlin, Santiago uses different self-motivation techniques to bolster his resolve. He thinks of his friend Manolin and wishes for his company, which seems to give him strength. He considers whether his hero, Joe DiMaggio, would stay with the fish and persevere.

Do you believe the great DiMaggio would stay with a fish as long as I will stay with this one? he thought. I am sure he would and more since he is young and strong. Also his father was a fisherman. But would the bone spur hurt him too much? 

Santiago shows perseverance fighting the tremendous odds against him—a fish larger than he has ever caught that he is facing alone, with cuts on his hands and face and his own pain and tiredness. He exercises discipline and fortitude during his struggle with the marlin to keep going and catch the fish even though it takes days, and eventually returns home safely.

`a_5 = 190, a_10 = 115` Find a formula for `a_n` for the arithmetic sequence.

We have to find the first term `a_1` and the common difference `d,` then the general formula will be `a_n=a_1+(n-1)d.`

The difference between `a_10` and `a_5` is equal to 5 common differences, i.e.

`d=(a_10-a_5)/5=(115-190)/5=-75/5=-15.`

The first term is 4 common differences less than 5-th, so

`a_1=a_5-4d=190+4*15=250.`

So the answer is: `a_n=250-(n-1)*15.`

Why do all liquids evaporate at different rates?

Evaporation is a physical change in which a substance changes from the liquid state to the gas phase. This is typically seen when heat is added to a liquid. This increases the kinetic energy of the molecules and they are able to escape the attractive forces of other similar molecules and enter the gas phase.

A number of factors affect the evaporation of a liquid. The boiling point is one of them. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius; other liquids have different boiling points. Pressure is also a significant factor. At higher altitudes, a drop in pressure means that the boiling point of water decreases. The density and surface tension of the liquid also affect its rate of evaporation. Liquids with higher densities and higher surface tensions have lower rates of evaporation.

This means that there are a number of factors which may affect the evaporation rate of liquids and since these factors may vary from liquid to liquid, different liquids have different rates of evaporation.

Hope this helps.  

How can I convert 12g of oxygen gas and 20g of water into moles?

For both of these calculations, you will need to use the conversion factor "1 mole = molar mass". So, before we begin the mole conversion calculations, we will need to calculate the molar masses of oxygen (` ` ) and water (` ` ).

Calculation of Molar Masses:

The molar mass of a substance is calculated by multiplying the atomic mass of each element in the substance by its subscript and then adding the resulting answers together. The atomic masses of oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) can be found in the periodic table: atomic mass of oxygen (O) = 16.0 g; atomic mass of hydrogen (H) = 1.0 g

molar mass of`~O_2`: 2 x 16.0 g = 32.0 g

So, the conversion factor that we will use for the `~O_2` mole conversion calculation becomes: 1 mol = 32.0 g

molar mass of ` ` : (2 x 1.0 g) + (1 x 16.0 g) = 18.0 g

So, the conversion factor that we will use for the `~H_2O` mole conversion calculation becomes: 1 mol = 18.0 g

Mole Conversion Calculations:

To convert a substance in grams to moles, multiply the given amount of the substance times its conversion factor.

   12 g ` ` x (1 mol/32.0 g) = 0.38 mol `~O_2`

   20 g `~H_2O ` x (1 mol/18.0 g) = 1.1 mol `~H_2O`

Notice that in both calculations, the conversion factors are oriented such that the "gram part" of each conversion factor is in the denominator. This enables us to cancel out the gram units, leaving our answers in moles.

In what ways does Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War bridge realism and constructivism?

Political theorists have long argued about whether or not Thucydides was a realist (believing that international conflict results due to human nature) or a constructivist (believing that conventions of international relations are socially and historically constructed). The reason for this disagreement is that Thucydides bridges the two theories in his History of the Peloponnesian War. 

As John Zumbrunnen, associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, asserts in "Realism, Constructivism and Democracy in the History" (linked below), Thucydides' blend of constructivism and realism is best evidenced in the person of Pericles, the famed Athenian statesmen. Through his speeches, Pericles attempts to describe Athens as it truly is (realism), but also lead Athens toward a higher form of itself, emphasizing its most noble qualities and letting go of its baser ones (such as its aggression). 

Zumbrunnen--discussing Friedrich Nietzsche's brief comments on Thucydides--explains how Thucydides uses Pericles' speeches to bridge constructivism and realism: 

Speech shapes not only identity but, too, those aspects of the political world—power, interest—that realists take as fixed by either human nature or the structure of the international arena.

Thus, Thucydides believed in fixed values such as justice and power, but he also believed that speech could define and shape those value.

How is Heathcliff described as a devil?

Heathcliff is one of the most villainous characters in all of literature.  He is referred to as a devil over and over again throughout Wuthering Heights.  

When he is first adopted by the Earnshaws, Mr. Earnshaw notices that "it’s as dark almost as if it came from the devil’" (IV).  Despite his rough childhood, Heathcliff seeks Nelly out to help him become more attractive to Catherine.  She responds by noting his "thick brows" and his eyes like "black fiends"  and "devil's spies" (VII). She seems to be saying that he will never be able to mask his devilish appearance. 

Later, his personality becomes evil as well.  His wife, Isabella, finds out soon after her wedding that Heathcliff is more than unkind.  She asks "Is Mr. Heathcliff a man?  If so, is he mad?  And if not, is he a devil?" and later notes that no matter when it happened, his "... devilish nature would have revealed its existence somehow" (XIII)

Heathcliff even frightens his son, claiming to be "the devil himself" to scare his son so much in front of Cathy.

Ultimately, Heathcliff forces Cathy to marry his son or perhaps never see her ailing father again.  Nelly shows her rage when she asserts that she would fetch Cathy home even "... if that devil be killed on his own doorstones in trying to prevent it!(XVII).

The final time Heathcliff is refered to as the devil comes from Cathy.  After he has taken everything from her and made her a prisoner, she is still able to recognize "You are miserable, are you not?  Lonely, like the devil, and envious like him?  Nobody loves you—nobody will cry for you when you die!  I wouldn’t be you!’ "(SVIII).

Heathcliff lets his passions get the better of him and dies lonely and sad, if not a devil.

At the end of the story, Meimei considers her "next move." What move would you make if you were Meimei? What move do you think she will make?

If I were Meimei, I would realize when I have lost.  I would reason that a part of knowing the art of invisible strength is knowing when it is futile to fight anymore.  In light of this, I would apologize to my mother and seek reconciliation.  I would also try to see things from her perspective.  I would hopefully see that she sacrificed a lot for me and my brothers. So, I would try to be more thankful and understanding. 

I don't know if Meimei would take the above approach.  I don't think that she would do that, because she has fire in her heart.  The very fact that she ran away by herself shows the extent of her independence. In addition, the text says that she pondered her next move.

I closed my eyes and pondered my next move.

These words suggest that she will seek to win. She will probably give the cold shoulder and go her own way.  It will be a test of endurance to see who will win. 

What favor does Gatsby ask of Nick?

Toward the end of Chapter IV, after Jordan has told Nick the story of the history between Gatsby and Daisy as well as the fact that Gatsby bought the house directly across the bay from Daisy's on purpose, she reveals that Gatsby wants Nick to "'invite Daisy to [his] house some afternoon and then let him come over.'" Further, the reason Gatsby didn't just ask Jordan to arrange a meeting herself is because "'He wants [Daisy] to see his house, [...] And [Nick's] house is right next door.'" Jordan continues, speculating that Gatsby was hoping Daisy would happen into one of his crazy, infamous parties one night, but she never came. Then, he "'began asking people casually if they knew her, and [Jordan] was the first one he found." So, he spoke to her privately and asked her to ask Nick for the favor.

What type of conflicts (character vs. character, etc.) do Scout and Jem face as a result of Maycomb's rumors about Boo Radley in Harper Lee's To...

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout and Jem face both external and internal conflicts as they deal with Maycomb's rumors concerning Arthur (Boo) Radley.

At first, due to rumors, Scout and Jem see their neighbor Arthur as a threat, someone to fear, which is why they call him Boo. Because they see him as a threat, they see him as someone to stay away from. For example, when Jem, at Dill's urging, invents the game called "Boo Radley" in which they enact all the rumors and myths they have learned concerning Arthur's life, Scout protests the safety of such a game, saying, "He can get out at night when we're all asleep ...," showing us that the children have to believe that Arthur poses a threat to their lives and is someone to stay away from (Ch. 4). Anytime a character fears another character, we can call this a character vs. character conflict.

However, the conflicts concerning Scout, Jem and Arthur Radley go a bit deeper than that. Both children have a powerful urge to learn the truth about what Arthur is really like; their urge is so strong that it overwhelms their better natures. For example, at Dill's urging, Jem begins pulling foolish stunts to assuage his curiosity such as sneaking on to the Radley property to try and deliver a note to Arthur via fishing pole or to try and get a look at Arthur through a window at night. Both stunts were foolish because, as Atticus warns later in Chapter 26, Mr. Nathan [Radley] shoots "at every shadow he sees," just like he shot at the children's shadows when he thought they were the shadows of a person trying to steal his vegetables. Since sneaking on to the Radley property to try to assuage their curiosity is dangerous, their stunts show that their curiosity has overwhelmed their better natures that are ruled by logic, common sense, and respect for their fellow human beings. An internal conflict occurs when a character struggles with two opposing forces inside of the character, such as the character's good nature vs. the character's bad nature. Therefore, we can call Scout's and Jem's conflict between their curiosity vs. their more rational natures an internal conflict.

Was the U.S justified in limiting the civil liberties of its citizens during World War I?

This question refers to the Espionage and Sedition Acts that were passed during America's involvement in World War I. The Espionage Act of 1917 was not very controversial. It called for the prosecution of any citizen that acted in a way that would harm America's war effort. This law, however, caused a lot of confusion and actually saw a rise in vigilantes because it was vague in its definition of espionage. The law was enhanced with a series of measures that are commonly called the Sedition Acts. These addendums were a serious threat to free speech and the free press as it outlawed the dissemination of any material that spoke out against the government, military, or the war effort.

The question of suspending civil liberties during times of crisis seems to surface at least once every generation. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the Japanese Internment Camps of World War II to the Patriot Acts after 2001, civil liberties have been abridged by the federal government in response to some perceived threat. Since most of these crises dealt with fighting tyranny in other lands, I think it is a stretch to say that civil liberties should be curtailed at home to aid the fight against tyranny abroad.

When the United States Constitution was being debated, there was a significant contingency of anti-federalists that felt the document gave too much power to the federal government. They fought tirelessly for a document to guarantee civil liberties and freedoms. In fact, they threatened to undermine ratification if individual liberties were not protected. Their efforts resulted in ten amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. The framers of this document did not provide for these liberties to be compressed in times of crisis. In fact, it could be stated that the Bill of Rights was written during a time of stress as Americans were attempting to fix an economy that was wrecked with debt and social unrest. Having said all of this, it is hard for me to support the government's assertion that its citizens should have to give away basic rights like speech, opinion, and political discourse during times of war or economic duress.

What was one of the major effects of the continental glaicers on the landscapes of New York State?

One result of the continental glaciers on the landscape of New York’s landscape are the unconsolidated and unsorted sediments that are found along the hilly region of Long Island. Likewise, a track of rock that was transported and deposited by the continental glaciers can be found across the state.

The continental glaciers carried particles of various sizes. Particles as fine as clay and as large as boulders were carried by the glaciers. When the ice from the glaciers melted, the particles that were carried within the ice of the glaciers were deposited and relocated to the location at which the ice melted. For this reason, most of the surface materials of New York can be classified as transported materials. Such deposits are easy to recognize because they show less sorting than deposits that accrue from other means of erosion.  

During an Apollo moon landing, reflection panels were placed on the Moon. This allowed Earth-based astronomers to shoot laser beams at the Moon's...

Hello!

The distance may be obtained from the formula distance = speed * time. The speed of light is given and the time is also given. The only thing we have to take into account is that the laser beam flew the distance from Earth to the Moon twice: there and back.

So the distance between the astronomers and the Moon was about `1/2 * 3.00*10^8 * 2.52= 3.78*10^8(m), `  or `3.78*10^5` km.

In The Merchant Of Venice, what are the meanings of 'bankrupt' and 'prodigal'? Why has the person being referred to gone bankrupt and why is he...

The terms bankrupt and prodigal are used in Act 3, scene 1 by Shylock the Jewish moneylender, when he refers to Antonio, a Christian merchant and also our protagonist.

Shylock has been conversing with Salarino and Salanio, two of Antonio's Christian friends, about his daughter, Jessica, who has eloped with Lorenzo, a Christian. Shylock is very upset about his daughter\s betrayal and the fact that she had also stolen some of his valuables. During their conversation, Salarino asks Shylock:

...But
tell us, do you hear whether Antonio have had any
loss at sea or no?

The reason why Salarino asks Shylock this question is because the Jew and Antonio share a common interest. Shylock had lent Antonio's friend, Bassanio, three thousand ducats and Antonio had signed a bond that the loan would be repaid within three months. Rumors had been circulating that Antonio had lost all his ships at sea and would, therefore, not be able to settle the debt. Shylock would, of course, be very interested in this news since he had vowed to avenge himself against Antonio's abuse and this would give him the ideal opportunity to do so legally since the bond stated that he could cut out a pound of Antonio's flesh if he should forfeit on the agreement.

It is then that Shylock says:

There I have another bad match: a bankrupt, a
prodigal, who dare scarce show his head on the
Rialto; a beggar, that was used to come so smug upon
the mart; let him look to his bond:...

Shylock here compares Antonio to his daughter, Jessica, who he feels has betrayed him and, in a similar manner, Antonio is a bad partner since he cannot fulfill his duty of repaying the bond. The reason for this is that Antonio is a bankrupt, which is a term used to refer to someone who is unable to repay his or her debts. Such a person does not have the resources to settle a debt and therefore a court has to intervene to ensure that such a person's creditors can have at least some restitution.

Shylock also calls Antonio a prodigal which refers to a person who is wasteful and extravagant. He believes that Antonio was irresponsibly lavish and generous and should, therefore, be punished for his indiscretion. Shylock lodges a malicious suit against Antonio and asks the duke to make a judgement against him for not honoring his obligation. 

Shylock's malice lies in the fact that he hates Antonio for he is a Christian and also that he had suffered abuse at Antonio's hands, who had sworn at him, kicked him, called him a dog, criticized his lending practice and spat him on his cloak and in his face.

Why are chicken nugget biscuits so good?

As Michael Moss outlines in his book Salt, Sugar, Fat, How the Food Giants Hooked Us, large food corporations spend millions of dollars researching and developing foods that smell, taste and feel good in our mouths. This involves finding the perfect blend of aroma (smell), and crunch (how hard you have to bite) and the perfect combination of textures (mouth appeal), with the right balance of sugar and salt (taste) to make a food so appealing that you will want to eat more and more of it. Chicken nuggets biscuits are the type of fast food, like potato chips and french fries, that have been intensively tested and modified in labs so that they will trigger what Moss calls "instant feelings of pleasure" in the brain. To Moss, this kind of processed food has been largely responsible for the epidemic of obesity in this country. 

What are the criteria for a good wife according to Okeke in "Marriage is a Private Affair"?

Okeke believes in the traditional customs surrounding marriage and wishes to arrange his son's marriage to a girl whom he finds suitable. He tells Nnaemeka a wife should have "good character and a Christian background." These seem to be code words for a wife who is from Okeke's village and is from his ethnic group. When Nnaemeka tells his father that he is marrying a girl from Lagos with some of those same characteristics, Okeke objects. He is against his son's marriage for three reasons. First, Okeke believes that he should be responsible for arranging his son's marriage to a girl he approves of. Second, the girl is not from Okeke's and Nnemeka's Ibo tribe. Third, although Nnaemeka's fiancé Nene is a Christian, she is also a teacher, and Okeke believes that women should not be teachers. Despite the fact that Nene seems to be of good character and a Christian, Okeke will not acknowledge her and basically shuns his son for eight years because of his choice of a wife.

In "Digging," why does Seamus Heaney use the simile "as snug as a gun?"

The simile "snug as a gun" is startling when it appears in the poem "Digging." After just a line and a half, Heaney has already created an image of a writer sitting down to quietly reflect and contemplate, with the pen "resting" and "snug." When "gun" follows these two peaceful words, it suggests that the poem won't be as cozy and peaceful as we might expect.

One idea that Heaney might be introducing with this simile is the power of his tool. The poem puts a lot of focus on tools of a trade, particular the spades that the speaker's father and grandfather used to dig up peat and grow potatoes. The speaker knows that he doesn't have the kind of tool that can do manual labor like they did; he only has his pen. Still, this simile might be suggesting that his pen can be as powerful, or even more powerful, than the spades. The simile brings to mind the saying the pen is mightier than the sword. Perhaps the speaker is suggesting that with his pen, he will be able to access a power (and maybe even a violence?) that his father and grandfather couldn't.  

What evidence from the text supports the claim that Mr. Lewis is both a caring man and a jokester?

In Chapter 11, Mr. Lewis displays his caring nature by offering Bud a sandwich, apple, and a red pop when he sees him walking alone at 2:30 a.m. on a road towards Owosso, Michigan. Mr. Lewis not only gives Bud food but also offers him a ride to Grand Rapids, and gives Bud his coat to keep him warm on the ride home. On the ride back to Flint, Michigan, Mr. Lewis jokes with Bud by asking him if he's ever been in the army. Mr. Lewis says, "Well, I've got to tell you, I haven't heard so many 'sirs' since I was back at Fort Gordon in Georgia training for the Big War" (Curtis 113). Bud recognizes that Mr. Lewis is only teasing him and continues to drink the red pop. Before Bud falls asleep, Mr. Lewis asks him if he can hand him a bottle of blood because he hasn't eaten all day. Bud smiles because he knows Mr. Lewis is joking about being a vampire. Mr. Lewis graciously allows him to the spend the night at his daughter's house and lets Bud eat breakfast with them. During breakfast, Mr. Lewis continually makes jokes about his daughter's cooking abilities and teases Bud about his head being shaped like a peanut. Throughout the entire meal, Mr. Lewis and his grandchildren laugh and joke.

Explain Salanio's short speech, "I have never heard a passion so confused..."

In this scene, Salanio describes how Shylock reacted when his daughter Jessica stole his money and ran off with a Christian. Salanio is mocking Shylock’s priorities and laughing at his loss. According to him, Shylock could not figure out what to mourn more, the loss of his daughter or his money: “My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!” Hence, why Salanio refers to his outburst as “a passion so confused.” (Salanio might also be laughing at the potentially bawdy joke about the two precious stones that Jessica has “upon her.”)

This description indicates that Shylock is so flustered, he does not know how to react or what outrage to first address. He calls for the law and exclaims for his “Christian ducats,” because now a Christian has his money. Shylock’s obsession with his ducats derives from offensive stereotypes about Jews. Salanio’s view of Shylock’s reaction may be tainted by the character’s antisemitism (he calls Shylock “the dog Jew”), but the text itself also demonstrates antisemitic elements by portraying Shylock’s hard-hearted fixation on profit.

How did Atticus not do enough during the trial of Tom Robinson to find him innocent? State your viewpoint and back it with evidence from the text.

There are a few more things that Atticus could have done in the trial to help Tom Robinson's case. He could have called a character witness, such as Link Deas; next, he could have moved the jurisdiction to another jurisdiction; and finally, he could have called his own expert witness, such as a medical doctor, to discuss Mayella's wounds and Tom's disability.

First, Link Deas speaks out during the trial anyway, so Atticus could have used him as a willing character witness. Link Deas was Tom's employer for years. He would have been one of the best character witnesses to bring forward to discuss how humble and honest Tom is. Deas is also a respected businessman in the community whose opinion would have been taken seriously. Deas' outburst was not used as support for Tom because he wasn't on the witness stand when he said the following:

"I just want the whole lot of you to know one thing right now. That boy's worked for me eight years an' I ain't had a speck o'trouble outa him. Not a speck" (195).

Another thing that Atticus could have done, even though it may have been difficult for the first hearing rather than on appeal, is to get the venue for the case changed to another city (in the north maybe) or federal court where the jury could have been less racist and more sympathetic to Tom's story. As it was, Atticus just banked on the appeals process to save him. Sheriff Tate, Link Deas, and Atticus even spoke of a change of venue as follows:

"Link Deas said, 'Nobody around here's up to anything, it's that Old Sarum bunch I'm worried about. . . can't you get a--what is it, Heck?'

'Change of venue,' said Mr. Tate. 'Not much point in that, now is it?'" (145).

By Sheriff Tate's answer, Atticus must have felt the same way. There was no other venue they could have moved the case to that wouldn't have had a completely white-male, racist jury; so their hands seemed tied. However, maybe Atticus could have had other jurors brought, in or done something along those lines, rather than simply allow the trial go before Maycomb residents.

Finally, rather than calling Tom as his only witness, Atticus should have brought in his own medical doctor as an expert witness. This way, it would not have just been Tom's testimony against the testimonies of the sheriff and two white people. He could have used a doctor to testify that there would have been no way that Tom could have used his crippled arm to hurt Mayella. A doctor also could have shot down the Ewells' claims for Tom beating up Mayella; and, he could have verified Atticus's demonstration of Bob's left-handedness. Further, the doctor could have held up Tom's arm and shown the jury how disabled it was. They could have had a physical demonstration of Tom trying to choke the doctor, or throwing a punch with his left hand, but none of this was done. All Atticus did was call Tom up as a witness and give closing arguments, as follows:

"Gentlemen. . . a court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sounds as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty" (205).

He makes an appeal to "what's right"--to do the "right" thing. But for a white man in Alabama in the 1930s, that might mean "teaching a lesson" to the black community by convicting Tom.

In the end, there may have not been anything more Atticus could have done to change the jurors' minds. They were going to convict Tom because he was black no matter what. And as Heck Tate said, there wasn't much point in doing much more than they already had because a conviction was inevitable. However, the whole point of appointing Atticus to the case was to give Tom a fighting chance in such a racist community; thus, he probably should have, and could have, done more than what he did.

How did John Locke and Baron de Montesquie influence the Founding Fathers?

There were many influences on the establishment of a representative democracy in America, but two political philosophers played a significant role. The Seventeenth Century English philosopher John Locke probably had the greatest influence of anybody on the Declaration of Independence. His Second Treatise on Government included much of the language that Thomas Jefferson presented in the Declaration of Independence. Locke believed that the ruler's consent to govern was granted by the citizens. In exchange for that consent, the government had a responsibility to those citizens. Locke suggested that government's chief responsibility was to protect the natural rights of its citizens. These rights included life, liberty, and property. Locke postulates that if the government fails in that responsibility, the citizens have the responsibility to overthrow said government. These are the primary theories established in the Declaration of Independence.

The Eighteenth Century French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu had a profound influence on the United States Constitution. In his Spirt of the Laws (1748), he establishes the principle of separation of powers. Montesquieu posits that by dividing the government into smaller parts, with each having different responsibilities, it becomes more difficult for small groups of people to become despotic. He proposes that it is necessary for the different factions to have specific checks on each other to balance government. The United States Constitution establishes a system of government divided into three branches. The Constitution allows various checks and balances in a way that is similar to the treatise of Baron de Montesquieu.

Summary-Influences of Locke and Montesquie:

• Popular Sovereignty


• Representative Government


• Natural rights


• Responsibility to overthrow despotic government


• Separation of Powers


• Checks and Balances.

`a_1 = 6, r = -1/4` Write the first five terms of the geometric sequence.

The first five terms of geometric sequence can be computed with formula, such that:

`a_n = a_(n-1)*q`

`a_2 = a_1*q => a_2 = 6*(-1/4) => a_2 = -3/2`

`a_3 = a_2*q => a_3 = (-3/2)(-1/4) = 3/8`

`a_4 = a_3*q =>a_4 = 3/8*(-1/4) = -3/32`

`a_5 = a_4*q =>a_5 = (-3/32)(-1/4) = 3/128`

Hence, evaluating the five terms of geometric sequence yields `a_2 = -3/2, a_3 = 3/8, a_4 = -3/32, a_5 = 3/128.`

Why doesn’t every plant and animal turn into a fossil?

There are multiple reasons as to why not every plant and animal turns into a fossil. The first thing that must be considered is the type of organism. Some organisms have only soft body parts that have a lower chance of being preserved because they simply decay too quickly, while others have hard body parts such as shells, bones or teeth that have a greater chance of being preserved.

In general, for an organism to become fossilized, it needs to be buried rapidly in order to be protected from the elements and predators. This can happen by being covered in sediment in areas of high sedimentation such as the bottom of a lake. It could happen by being trapped in amber or volcanic ash as well. Because of this, fossilization often depends on the environment. Organisms that die in areas where they will be exposed for a long period of time have a much less likely chance of being fossilized. 

Because it is fairly rare for an organism to become a fossil, our fossil record is not a complete record of life on earth. It is biased toward organisms that have hard body parts and those that lived in areas more favorable for fossilization. 

I hope this helps and happy studying!

Describe Squeaky's attitude towards phoniness and girlishness in "Raymond's Run" by Toni Cade Bambara.

In "Raymond's Run" by Toni Cade Bambara, Squeaky's attitudes towards phoniness and girlishness are the same. She does not like either! She is irritated by Cynthia Procter, who, according to Squeaky, is a phony. Cynthia acts like she never practices piano or studies for spelling bees, but then when the time comes for a test or a bee, Cynthia aces it. She also often just happens to sit down on the piano bench and plays as though she is an expert. 

"But of course when I pass her house on my early morning trots around the block, she is practicing the scales on the piano over and over and over and over" (Bambara 3).

To Squeaky, that is like cheating. She does not see anything wrong with practicing in front of people. Squeaky prides herself on working on her running whenever she has an opportunity, and she doesn't care who sees her.

She also thinks it's silly for girls to get all dressed up and dance around the May Pole even though her mother wishes she would "act like a girl for a change" (Bambara 5).m Squeaky believes in being herself, and the person she is is not that little girl dressing up to dance.

"...when you should be trying to be yourself, whatever that is, which is as far as I am concerned, a poor Black girl who really can't afford to buy shoes and a new dress you only wear once a lifetime 'cause it won't fit next year" (Bambara 6).

Squeaky thinks everyone should be himself/herself, not some made-up version that someone else—like a parent or teacher or friend—has in mind. 

How can an appearance of insanity help Hamlet achieve his ends?

Hamlet uses his apparent insanity to prevent anyone from knowing he is suspicious about his father’s death.

Hamlet is crazy like a fox.  When his father dies, he is devastated. It sinks him into a deep depression.  His father visits him as a ghost, and tells him what really happened.  His father was murdered by Hamlet’s uncle, who used the death to marry Hamlet’s mother and become king.  He implores Hamlet to avenge his death.

Prince Hamlet does not take the news well.  It does not help that his father wants him to get revenge.  Hamlet is not really a violent person.  He is faced with indecision about how to proceed.  He decides to fake crazy, taking advantage of his prior mental state to throw everyone off.  It is not hard for people to believe that Hamlet is nuts, because he has never been the most stable person.  He is angry at his mother for marrying Claudius.

Hamlet’s friends worry about him.  Ophelia is horrified at how he acts toward her, peppering her with crude innuendo.  It is not like him at all.  He needs Ophelia for his crazy act. People assume that he is mad with love for her.  Hamlet explains to Guildenstern that he is not really insane.  He admits it is all an act to throw off Claudius and Gertrude. 

HAMLET

You are welcome: but my

uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived.

GUILDENSTERN

In what, my dear lord?

HAMLET

I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is
southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. (Act 2, Scene 2) 

His antics get zanier and zanier.  Hamlet kills Polonius and won’t tell anyone where the body is, pretending he is playing hide and seek with it.  He also makes very inappropriate comments when pressed about where Ponlonius is.  

KING CLAUDIUS

Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?

HAMLET

At supper.

KING CLAUDIUS

At supper! where?

HAMLET

Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. (Act 4, Scene 3)

Anyone who observed this exchange would assume Hamlet was crazy.  Who says things like that?!  Hamlet is messing with Claudius though.  He actually does feel bad about Polonius.  It was an accident.  He did not know that it was Polonius hiding.  He desires to kill Claudius, and get revenge.  He is not on a murderous rampage.

Between Ophelia and Polonius, no one has any trouble believing Hamlet is a few Fruit Loops short of a bowl.  He is able to use this to devise a scheme for revenge.  Unfortunately, it results in his death, and the deaths of Laertes and his mother as well as the king.  Ophelia commits suicide.  

Based on the political principles of classical liberalism and the women's suffragette movement, why were the evolution of universal suffrage and...

The connection between classical liberalism and women's rights is so strong that the really baffling thing is how long it took people to see it.
Classical liberalism was based on principles like personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and universal suffrage---and yet for centuries these principles were only applied to upper-class White men.

Even as the Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal", policy did not even actually include all men for a long time---much less all human beings as it should have said in the first place.

There was of course no logical reason to justify this; it didn't make sense in terms of the principles of liberty to systematically exclude so many people. Some of the first modern arguments for women's rights were based on classical liberalism, and in terms of logic they were basically irrefutable. On any rational account of individual rights, all human beings would be included. On any rational account of democracy, all adults would have suffrage.

The problem, of course, is that human beings are not pure rational agents, much as we might pretend ourselves to be. We often behave irrationally. In this case, the irrational refusal to accept women and people of color as full human beings and equal citizens caused an enormous amount of suffering around the world for centuries---and in some cases still does today.

The inclusion of women and people of color as citizens and voters was a major step forward toward the goals established by classical liberal principles centuries ago. It's just a shame that it took so long to actually apply those principles consistently.

How does love aid people in Sonnet 29?

Sonnet 29, "When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes" by William Shakespeare, is narrated in the first person singular and thus describes the experience of a single person, not of people in general. The sonnet consists of an octave describing the ways in which the narrator is unhappy with his external circumstances and a sestet. In the octave the narrator describes himself as lacking the respect of others, enduring bad fortune, and envying the circumstances and abilities of other people.

After the octave is a Petrarchan-style turn, in which the narrator reflects upon his beloved:

Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,

Haply I think on thee, and then my state,

Like to the lark at break of day arising

From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;

In other words, when thinking about how happy he is in his relationship, the narrator forgets about all of his other troubles and is so happy that he would not even change places with a king. Thus love aids the narrator by making him happy even when other external circumstances are less than ideal.