What are some examples of hysteria in The Crucible?

One of the first examples of hysteria is made evident when the Putnams arrive at the Parrises' house.  Right away, Mrs. Putnam is described as "shiny-eyed" and she wants to know how high Betty flew.  When Reverend Parris denies that his daughter did fly, Mrs. Putnam exclaims, "Why, it's sure she did.  Mr. Collins saw her goin' over Ingersoll's barn, and come down light as a bird, he says!"  This kind of rumor is only perpetuated by something like hysteria.  People's emotions have to be running quite high in order for them to believe that an otherwise normal little girl could actually fly.  This shows us, right away, that the town is already in the grip of hysteria.

Next, at the end of Act One, Betty and Abigail have become hysterical; at least Betty is described as "calling out hysterically" and her emotions seem to have completely run away with her logic or ability to consider the consequences of what she's saying.  She has "a fever in her eyes," according to stage direction.  

By the beginning of Act Three, the sheer level of noise in the courtroom seems to suggest that the town has devolved into a state of hysteria.  Their "voices rise in excitement," and when Giles Corey accuses Thomas Putnam of wrongdoing, "A roaring goes up from the people."  The Puritans were, generally, a pretty orderly, subdued people.  The fact, now, that there is so much shouting and intense emotion indicates that a change has taken place.  They are being ruled by this emotion now, and not logic.

Which point is an x-intercept of the quadratic functionf(x) = (x + 6)(x – 3)?

Hello!

An x-intercept of a function is a point x where the graph of a function intersects the x-axis. Such a points have the y-coordinate equal to zero. Different functions may have zero, one, two and any number of x-intercepts up to infinity.

In another words, x-intercepts of function f(x) are the same as roots of the equation f(x)=0.

In our case, f(x) is already factored and it is very simple to find its roots:

(x+6)(x-3)=0 means x+6=0 or x-3=0,

so the roots are `x_1=-6` and `x_2=3.` They are also the x-intercepts in question.

What is the summary of "Breaking Out" by Marge Piercy?

"Breaking out" moves back and forth between the thoughts of an empowered female, designated by "I," and a little girl who feels powerless, indicated by an "i." They are both the same person, and the poem shows how the scared and questioning little girl grows powerful in two ways, first, by rejecting the domestic life led by her housewife mother and second, by breaking the yardstick her parents used to beat her.

In the first four stanzas, the little girl questions the life of housework that she, as a female, is being raised to lead. She doesn't see any need for using the "mangle" to iron clothes and she is not interested in the "stuffed sausage bag" of the vacuum cleaner. She can't understand why her mother submits to such drudgery, but knows she will not follow in her mother's footsteps.

In school, when she reads about the Greek Sisyphus, who was sent to Hades and had to roll a rock up a hill, always to have it slip from his grasp and roll to the bottom when he was half way up, so that he had to start over and over, the girl connects this to her mother's life of housework:

it was her I
thought of, housewife scrubbing
on raw knees as the factory rained ash.

In the second part of the poem, the girl describes being beaten and how painful it is. Finally, she breaks the yardstick that is used to beat her, and is surprised at how easy it is to do so. Breaking the yardstick doesn't end the beatings, but it does give her a sense of power.

Piercy sums up the poem's meaning in the final stanza:

This is not a tale of innocence lost but power gained : I would not be Sisyphus,  there were things that I should learn to break.

The final stanza means she has gained power by deciding not to become a housewife ("Sisyphus") and by learning she can "break" what oppresses her, like the yardstick used to beat her. 

Compare the korl woman of Rebecca Harding Davis' "Life in the Iron Mills" with the yearning felt in Emily Dickinson's poetry.

In some ways the korl woman from Life in the Iron Mills can be thought of as a representation of the longing for "action" we find in Emily Dickinson's work.

The "korl woman" is a statue of a woman, "white, of giant proportions, crouching on the ground, her arms flung out in some wild gesture of warning."

Later it is described this way:

“There was not one line of beauty or grace in it: a nude woman's form, muscular, grown coarse with labor, the powerful limbs instinct with some one poignant longing. One idea: there it was in the tense, rigid muscles, the clutching hands, the wild, eager face, like that of a starving wolf's.” 

According to Wolfe, the sculptor/furnace operator, the woman is "hungry": for "Summat to make her live." The brutal labor of the mills crushes the human spirit—Davis writes, “Think that God put into this man's soul a fierce thirst for beauty,—to know it, to create it; to be—something, he knows not what,—other than he is.” 

Dickinson never worked in an iron mill, and her sequestered life was very different than the lives of Wolfe and Deborah, the tragic protagonists of Harding's novella. However, perhaps what Dickinson shares with them is a sense of being buried alive, a yearning for freedom that can be expressed in art but not actually attained. One thinks of a poem like "Wild Nights" in this connection, but to me a better poem is "A not admitting of the wound":

A not admitting of the wound
Until it grew so wide
That all my Life had entered it
And there were troughs beside -

A closing of the simple lid
that opened to the sun
Until the tender Carpenter
Perpetual nail it down -

We might feel, when confronted with poems like this, the same as May when he sees the korl woman—“What does the fellow intend by the figure? I cannot catch the meaning.” Whatever meaning we assign to the "wound," what is important is the feeling of one's life being consumed, even as the poet is in the act of expressing what is happening to her. Like the korl woman's wild gestures, Dickinson's poetry is an assertion of her existence and her access to a kind of truth.

What were the short-term ramifications of Marbury v. Madison?

Of course, the long-term ramifications of Marbury v. Madison were enormous. By establishing the principle of judicial review in ruling key portions of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, the Court asserted its power in ways that permanently changed its role in federal government. Its short-term importance, however, was quite limited. The Supreme Court would not actually rule on the constitutionality of another federal law until its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. One consequence of the decision was that William Marbury, the "midnight justice" who petitioned the Court to force James Madison to deliver his commission, was denied the right to receive the document. So, indeed, were many other Federalist appointees to judgeships, which were eliminated by another Judiciary Act passed by a Republican-dominated Congress even before the decision in Marbury was delivered. But the importance of the decision to posterity was far from evident at the time, though Jefferson did realize it strengthened the judiciary branch.

Do you think Hester is a martyr, or do you think her repentance is sincere?

I am not sure that these two ideas are necessarily in opposition to each other.  Let us explore each and then decide where Hester fits into the picture.  A "martyr" is someone who is innocent and who suffers (and is usually killed) for the faith or for some saintly purpose.  A person who shows sincere "repentance" is someone who is guilty, but shows they are truly sorry for what they have done.  The true opposition here is in the terms innocent vs. guilty.

In my opinion, Hester is both; however, let me transpose the two terms in order to explain my theory.  Yes, Hester shows sincere repentance.  Hester is "guilty" of the sin of adultery for sure.  She has Pearl after having relations with Dimmesdale.  How does she show sincere repentance?  By accepting the town's punishment without question.  She stands on the scaffold.  She wears the letter "A."  She lives apart.  She accepts isolation.  However, yes, Hester is also a martyr.  Even though she participates fully in the punishments of the town, the town punishes her for a lifetime for her sin anyway.  Because everyone is a sinner, Hester becomes a martyr for the faith in this way.  Every one of those townspeople sins in some way.  Hester's sin is worn on her breast.  She continues to be punished both by her letter "A" and by the looks of the townspeople.  This makes her a martyr. 

In conclusion, I should point out that Hester  isn't necessarily "innocent," but she has been washed clean of her sin by reparation and is not any more deserving of sever punishment than any of the other townspeople.  The townspeople aren't innocent either.  In regards to sin, no one is "innocent."

Who seems more determined to kill King Duncan, Lady Macbeth or Macbeth? Why? Give evidence.

I believe Lady Macbeth is more determined to have King Duncan killed. From the very first moment that she learns of the prophecy, she is plotting to get Macbeth on the throne.  

"Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be / What thou art promised"

The line doesn't guarantee that she is plotting murder, but the hint is fairly obvious.  She's not willing to wait for Duncan to die of natural causes, so from that moment Lady Macbeth is plotting to kill Duncan.  She comes up with the entire plan without any input from Macbeth.  Lady Macbeth even tells her husband this fact at the end of Act I, Scene 5.  

Only look up clear;
To alter favour ever is to fear:
Leave all the rest to me.

Probably the best evidence that I have for her determination to have Duncan killed is Act I, Scene 7.  After the banquet, Macbeth tells his wife that he can't go through with the murder any more.  Lady Macbeth won't have any of it, and she berates Macbeth and calls into question his honor and manhood.  

Wherein you dress'd yourself? hath it slept since?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,'
Like the poor cat i' the adage?

Her "pep talk" works, and Macbeth resolves to kill Duncan.  

I would like to play the devil's advocate for a moment to my own statement above.  While I do think that Lady Macbeth is more determined to kill Duncan, I have always found it interesting that she doesn't ever actually screw up the courage to do any of the murderous acts.  When Macbeth said that he wouldn't go through with the murder, Lady Macbeth could have walked into Duncan's room and killed him.  But she didn't.  She wants him dead, but she isn't resolved enough to do it herself.  It reminds me of kids in school.  One kid wants something done, but he is too scared to do it.  So what does he do?  He convinces somebody else to do it in order to avoid any possible repercussions.  I see Lady Macbeth like that a lot of the time.  She wants it, but isn't willing to actually take action. 

What is the point that E.E Cummings makes in his poem "next to of course god america i"?

In his poem "next to of course god america i," e. e. cummings satirizes the blind chauvinism that politicians summon from the citizens and soldiers in order to serve their purposes in times of war. This is his point: That patriotism serves only the politicians, not those who die for the country during war times.

--Mocking tone
Always with his use of small letters and unconventional language, cummings manipulates meaning and tears through triteness. His use of such expressions as "and so forth," "what of it," "by jingo," "by gee," "by gosh," "by gum" run together with the apparently mindless recitation of patriotic phrases such as "land of the pilgrims" and words from the national anthem--"oh/say can you see by the dawn's early..."--establish a mocking tone.

--Satire 
Moreover, the insertion of "deafanddumb" directly before the line, "My sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry" insinuates that the patriotic are unheeding of the reality of wars, an idea suggested at the end of the line with verbal slip of the glib speaker who mispronounces "golly" as "gorry." Further, the insertion of American slang reduces what is meant to be a speech arousing the patriotism of the "sons [who] acclaim your [America's] glorious name" to a ridiculous level and mocks the speaker's assumed superiority.

In addition, the use of the word "jingo" alludes to the extreme nationalism of America embraced by President Theodore Roosevelt who vigorously espoused the idea of protecting America's national interests by going to war. Roosevelt acknowledged that Americas are "jingoes" if insisting upon the rights of the United States being respected by foreign countries is "jingoism." So, with the use of this word, Cummings again mocks the blind patriotism that sends into war what will become the "heroic happy dead" (an oxymoron) who "did not stop to think," but rush instead "like lions to the roaring slaughter."

Finally, the politician/speaker himself realizes his words are hypocritical and that if all patriots rush into battle only to die, there will no longer be anyone to summon to the political causes of the country--"then shall the voice of liberty be mute?" And, because he finds this idea metaphorically hard to swallow, he must drink "rapidly a glass of water."

What type of figurative language is used in "it is a sin to kill a mockingbird"?

Atticus explains that killing a mockingbird is a sin because all the mockingbird does is make music. Unlike bluejays or crows, the mockingbird does not damage crops or attack other animals. There are multiple examples, or representations of this in the story.

Symbolically, the sin of killing a mockingbird translates to the sin of wrongly finding Tom Robinson guilty. Tom Robinson is shown throughout the story as a good person, a hard worker, and someone who has strong values and genuinely tries to help others.

Tom Robinson is meant to represent the human equivalent of a mockingbird. While other people in the story are hurtful, prideful, and at times violent, Tom is quiet and respectful.

The same can be said for Boo Radley. He has become what he is based on what was done to him. Even though he was responsible for Ewell's death, it would be wrong to put him on trial. He saved Jem's life and meant no harm to anyone.

In both cases, the way the characters live their lives is symbolic of the mockingbird. So, the figurative language used is symbolism - the symbol of the mockingbird as a representation of good/harmless people. 

Question: "She loved the warmth that came out of him when they were alone together. She loved the shape of his mouth, and she especially liked the...

You could analyze this quote and determine certain things about their relationship. From this quote alone, it is clear that Mary is dedicated to her husband. She experiences a "warmth" just being in Patrick's presence. She even loves that he does not complain about being tired. From this quote, we can conclude that she loves all of the little things about him. 

However, to make a more complete assessment of their relationship, you will have to refer to other parts of the story. She waits for her husband to come home. It seems that she structures her entire day in order to prepare for his arrival. This even more clearly demonstrates her love and admiration for her husband. When he arrives, she waits on him like a maid. Given her devotion and comfort in their marriage, it is understandable why she is so shocked when he informs her that he is leaving her. Again, given her admiration for him, it heightens the reader's shock upon reading of her revenge and strategic plan to cover up her crime. So, you do need to refer to other parts of the story to get "the whole story" of their relationship. 

In Of Mice and Men, was George right or wrong to shoot Lennie?

In John Steinbeck's novella Of Mice and Men George is forced to kill his friend Lennie after Curley's wife is discovered dead in the barn on the ranch where George and Lennie have come to work. Even though Lennie doesn't realize the gravity of his actions, George knows that his friend has committed murder and that Curley, the other men on the ranch and the law will not treat Lennie kindly. All Lennie knows is that he's "done another bad thing." George meets Lennie in the prearranged spot next to the Salinas River. While he is again describing the dream of the farm, he shoots Lennie in the back of the head. His actions are justified by the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The episode is foreshadowed earlier in the book when Candy's old dog is put out of its misery by Carlson. Candy regrets his decision to not kill the dog himself. He tells George in chapter three:

“I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn’t ought to of let no stranger shoot my dog.”

George must have been thinking about this when Curley's wife is found with her neck broken in chapter five. Curley is enraged and makes belligerent threats toward Lennie:

Curley came suddenly to life. “I know who done it,” he cried. “That big son- of-a-bitch done it. I know he done it. Why—ever’body else was out there playin’ horseshoes.” He worked himself into a fury. “I’m gonna get him. I’m going for my shotgun. I’ll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I’ll shoot ‘im in the guts. Come on, you guys.” 

Remembering Candy's words, George takes Carlson's Luger, the same gun that was used on the dog. His decision to kill Lennie is reinforced by Slim who understands the relationship between George and Lennie. Slim also knows that Lennie would never understand what was happening to him if he was captured by Curley or if he was taken to jail. Slim says,

"But Curley’s gonna want to shoot ‘im. Curley’s still mad about his hand. An’ s’pose they lock him up an’ strap him down and put him in a cage. That ain’t no good, George.”

George, then, is merciful in killing Lennie at the end of the book. Before the shot, he tells Lennie to look across the river and imagine the farm. He also reassures the big man of the importance of their friendship and George expresses his notions of how he wished things could be. He says,

“You . . . . an’ me. Ever’body gonna be nice to you. Ain’t gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal from ‘em.”

Only Slim understands George's actions toward Lennie. Slim is ever the realist and he knows Lennie needed to be put down. He tells George in the final lines of the novella:

“You hadda, George. I swear you hadda. Come on with me.” He led George into the entrance of the trail and up toward the highway.

What would happen if the nucleus was missing from the animal cell?

Nucleus is the brain of the cell and controls most of its functions. Thus without a nucleus, an animal cell or eukaryotic cell will die. The nucleus consists of all the genetic material in an animal cell and directs the functions of the cell, by regulating gene expression. It also maintains the integrity of genetic material. Without a nucleus, the cell will not know what to do and there would be no cell division. Protein synthesis would either cease or incorrect proteins would be formed. All this would result in cell death.

Unlike eukaryotes, prokaryotes have no nucleus and carry out all of their functions easily. Unfortunately, loss of a nucleus in animal cell will not convert it to prokaryotes and hence it will cease to function, after a while and die out.

Hope this helps.

How is sperm transferred to the egg?

During intercourse, a male may deposit his sperm in the vaginal cavity of a female. Each ejaculation contains an average of 280 million sperm cells, any less than 20 million indicates there is an issue with the man's fertility. Such a high number of sperm cells per ejaculation is an evolutionary advantage, because not many of the cells will actually reach the egg. And even out of that small number, only one (and in some rare circumstances, two) sperm cells will unite with the egg.

The sperm cells have about 24 to 48 hours to reach the egg before they begin to break down and are incapable of reproduction. At the top of the vaginal cavity is a small ring of muscle called the cervix, which separates the uterus from the vaginal cavity. When women experience cramping before and during menstruation, the feeling is often caused by the cervix flexing and relaxing to release blood and tissue. When a male ejaculates inside a female, the ideal scenario for fertilization involves the sperm being released right up by the cervix. Sperm are suspended in a fluid called semen, which begins to mix and coagulate with the vaginal fluids. This mixing does two things: it allows the sperm to begin swimming a little farther, including up into the cervix and uterus, and it also initiates a coagulation of the semen, which for a short time makes the sperm "stick" in the vaginal cavity. Because the vagina is naturally a little acidic, the coagulated semen is broken down again and will leave the vaginal cavity on its own. Around the time of ovulation, cervical mucous actually changes in its chemical makeup so that it is thinner and more slippery to allow sperm to have an easier swim up into the uterus.

Here's an idea for an experiment that demonstrates how semen and vaginal fluids create a buffer for sperm to travel up the vaginal cavity and into the uterus. It has to do with cohesive and capillary action. First, put a few drops of food coloring into a glass filled halfway with water and give it a stir. Next, gently dampen a paper towel or napkin with plain water. Then, lower the napkin or paper towel into the glass until it just touches the water- you should see the pigment of the food coloring travel up the napkin! The reason it travels so easily is because the napkin is already wet. For the same reason, sperm have a pretty easy time of getting around in the mucosal membranes of the vagina, cervix, and uterus.

Though the cervix is a very tight ring of muscle, it does have a small opening which allows some of the sperm cells into the uterus. Here's the really tricky part: the sperm cells now have to keep swimming upwards until they reach the egg, nestled in the fallopian tube. It's quite a swim and really depends on how strong a sperm cell is. Sperm cells propel themselves with tails that eventually will begin to break down, so the strongest swimmers are more likely to get to the egg. When sperm cells reach the egg, they must burrow through a thick outer layer, aided by enzymes the sperm release. Hundreds of sperm may push against the egg before one cell breaks through and fertilization begins.

Who enforced English laws in the colonies?

For most of colonial history, English laws in the colonies were enforced by a number of officials. At the highest level was the Board of Trade, based in London. The Board was part of the Privy Council, the closest advisers to the king, and it had the power to review and to give assent to any laws passed by colonial legislatures. The colonies themselves were governed by royal governors, who with only a few exceptions were appointed by the King with the advice of the Board of Trade. Governors were guided by instructions given by the Board, which usually consisted of their expectations for how to enforce British policy. Governors worked with colonial legislatures, who passed laws that were supposed to (but often didn't) conform to British law. At the local level, laws were enforced by justices of the peace, sheriffs, and constables. Though technically they were enforcing colonial laws, they were positions that were deliberately created to emulate similar posts in Great Britain itself, and they were understood as part of the hierarchical structure that governed British society. 

Laurie describes Charles as "bigger than me." What is the significance of this description?

Laurie's description of Charles as "bigger than me" signifies his connection to Charles and foreshadows what we learn in the end of the story, that Charles is a creation of Laurie's imagination.

Laurie has just begun kindergarten and comes home each day with stories about a boy in his class, Charles, who is having trouble adjusting to school and who is making bad decisions. While Laurie had been a sweet, innocent young boy never having been to school, the Charles that Laurie describes appears to be a classic school trouble maker who insults others regularly.

In describing Charles as bigger than he is, Laurie signifies that he cannot control Charles and that the antics Charles takes part in are not within Laurie's control. In this way, Laurie attempts to distance himself from the acts and to hint that he could not have stopped Charles' actions.

What actions were taken by the American colonists that helped to lead to rebellion following the French and Indian War?

There were several things the colonists did that helped lead the colonists to rebel against the British after the French and Indian War. One action the colonists took was some colonists refused to obey the Proclamation of 1763. They wanted land, and they were going to go and get it despite the law.

The colonists also protested the various tax laws passed by the British. The colonists believed the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts were illegal because they didn’t have representatives in Parliament to vote for these taxes. Thus, the colonists boycotted British goods and eventually started to make some of these products themselves. They organized committees of correspondence to keep the colonists aware of events throughout the colonies.

The colonists also agitated the British. The colonists were unruly toward the British soldiers the night of the Boston Massacre. They were throwing things at the British soldiers. The colonists also destroyed property by dumping tea into Boston Harbor in December 1773. These actions increased tensions in the colonies.

The colonists eventually formed their own militias. This suggested the colonists believed they were going to fight the British soldiers. Eventually, battles broke at Lexington and Concord in April 1775. These actions helped to bring about the Revolutionary War.

What is the reason for the loss of the innocence of the children in Lord of the Flies?

The major reason for the loss of innocence that is suffered by the boys is the inherent (in Golding's mind and his portrayal in the novel) evil present in all men, or boys as the case is here. Golding is careful to start the boys acting in the way that any of us would expect "civilized" boys to act. They discuss things, choose a leader, and begin to organize things in order to accomplish the goals of building shelter and getting rescued.

Golding then begins to introduce the idea of evil and a thirst for violence and a way to fight back against the unknown. Jack and his hunters are hesitant at first, unable to actually strike out and kill a pig. As time goes on the hesitation is lost and they quickly reach a point where they are actually able to kill each other with the same ease as they kill the pigs.

This propensity for evil is what leads the boys to see themselves in such a stark light. As Ralph weeps in front of the naval officer, he weeps not in relief at being rescued or because of the fear he had of being killed but at the loss of innocence they had all suffered.

Can you help me understand books, specifically Hoot by Carl Hiaasen?

Here are some ideas that will help you understand fiction books, using Hoot as an example. When you start reading a novel, think first about characters. Who is the book about? The first person or people you read about will probably be the main character or characters. Try to find out what each character is like. Pay attention to what he or she says and does, and what other people say or do in response to the character. Early in the story, you should be able to find out what the character wants or needs. This is the conflict of the story. Also, find out where and when the story takes place. This is known as the setting. In Hoot, we first meet Roy, who is the main character of the story. He has recently moved to Coconut Cove, Florida. He wants to find out about the mysterious running boy, and he needs to keep from getting pulverized by Dana Matherson.

As more characters are introduced, think about how they relate to the main character. They may be antagonists—those who keep the main character from achieving his goal. Dana Matherson and Beatrice Leep are antagonists to Roy at first, but Beatrice ends up becoming a friend who helps Roy find out about the running boy. 

Some characters may be part of the story's subplots. These are stories that intersect with the main story. In Hoot, Officer Delinko and Curly both have their own story lines with their own conflict. Officer Delinko wants to become a detective, and Curly wants to keep his job as the construction site foreman. Sometimes the action of the story leaves Roy and follows one of these other main characters. The running boy, Mullet Fingers, has his own wants and needs, as well. He wants to save the owls and to keep his mother from finding out where he is.

Pay attention to how the characters' wants and needs change throughout the novel. When Roy finds out who the running boy is and what he's trying to do, Roy's goal changes to wanting to save the owls. 

As various events happen in the novel, keep track of main events and how they move the characters closer to their goals or further away from them. When Officer Delinko's car windows are spray-painted black, he is set back from becoming a detective, and they get Curly in trouble with his boss. This is all part of Mullet Fingers's plan to protect the owls, as we find out later.

Eventually a story will reach a high point of tension called the climax. Events come together so the conflicts will be resolved. The characters will achieve their goals and solve their problems, or they will fail. In Hoot, this is when "Mother Paula" arrives for the groundbreaking ceremony, but the children block the event and reveal the presence of the owls. The owls are saved.

At the end of a novel, in the final chapter and possibly in an Epilogue, as Hoot has, look for all the loose ends to be tied up and all the questions answered. This is called the resolution. We find out Mullet Fingers's real name is Napoleon Bridger. The Mother Paula's company is embroiled in a scandal. Dana Matherson is sent to juvenile detention, and Napoleon uses him as a pawn in an escape plan. 

Keeping track of characters, setting, conflict, subplots, climax, and resolution as you read will help you understand and enjoy novels.

What are the differences and similarities between the movie and book versions of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men?

There are two feature length films of Steinbeck's novella Of Mice and Men. One was made in 1939 with Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney Jr. It is an excellent adaptation but might not be as appealing to a modern audience as the 1992 version with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich. For that reason, I will focus on the 1992 version. 

The plot is basically the same and the most important scenes, the opening scene with George and Lennie camped by the Salinas River, the fight between Curley and Lennie, and the scene with Lennie and Curley's wife in the barn are virtually identical, even down to the dialogue. In fact, the dialogue is exact in many places including the dialect used by the characters.

There are, however, some differences and things that are left out. One major difference is that the story is told as a flashback as George rides on a train. Another big difference is in the portrayal of Curley's wife. There is a hint of attraction between George and Curley's wife which does not exist in the book. There is an added scene with George and Curley's wife alone in the barn. She also seems more vulnerable in an added scene where she cries about Curley breaking her record collection. A major scene which is left out is the beginning of chapter six when Lennie is talking to the imaginary rabbit and his dead Aunt Clara. Obviously, this scene may have proved difficult to film. The ending of that chapter when Curley, Carlson and Slim show up after George has shot Lennie is also gone. 

The actors seem as though they actually walked off the pages of Steinbeck's book. John Malkovich as Lennie and Ray Walston as Candy are particularly excellent and embody all of the characteristics of those men. The director did a great job of making Malkovich look as big as Lennie. There is an added scene, which fits perfectly, showing Lennie loading grain bags on a wagon. There are two such scenes of the men working in the fields which do not detract and are implicit in the text. The setting too is very realistic. Although the movie was not filmed in the Salinas Valley, it was filmed about 200 miles south in the Santa Ynez Valley of California, which, for all intents and purposes, is virtually the same. The bunkhouse too is a good replica down to the card table and "tin-shaded electric light."

Solve y''+4y'+3y=0, y(0)=2, y'(0)=-1

We begin the question by finding the general solution of this second order differential equation. In order to approach this question we need to find the characteristic equation first: 

The characteristic equation is found as follows: 

`D^2 + 4D + 3 = 0`

Now we apply basic factorization: 

`(D+3) (D+1) = 0`

Now we determine the roots by equating each term to zero: 

`D+ 3 = 0 or D+1= 0`

`D = -3 or D = -1`

From the above roots we can now find the general solution: 

`y (x) = C_1 e^(-3x) + C_2 e^(-x)`

where: 

`C_1 and C_2` are constants. 

Since we have conditions, y(0) = 2 and y'(0) = 1, we can find the particular solution and solve for the above constants. 

Let's begin with the first constraint: y(0) = 2

`y(0) = C_1 e^(-3*0) +C_2 e^(-1*0)` , e^0 = 1

`2 = C_1 + C_2` (equation 1)

Now we use the second constraint y'(0)=1. But first we must find y'(x)

`y' (x) = -3C_1 e^(-3x) - C_2 e^-x`

`y'(0) = -3 C_1 -C_2` (we know from above e^0 =1)

`-1 = -3C_1 -C_2`  (equation 2)

We have two unknowns and two equations. We can now add both equations: 

`2-1 = -3C_1 + C_1 -C_2 +C_2`

`1 = -2 C_1`

`C_1 = -1/2`

Now we can find C_2 from equation 1: 

`C_2 = 2 - 1/2 = 5/2`

Now we have our constants our particular equation is: 

   

`y(x) = (-1/2) e^(-3x) + (5/2)e^-x`

What is the role of DNA in determining an organism's traits?

It is DNA that contains the genetic code that is used to make proteins. In turn, it is the structure of proteins that determines many of the biological functions and physical characteristics of an organism.

Genes are segments of DNA. DNA stands for deoxyribose nucleic acid. DNA is made of smaller building blocks called nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a deoxyribose sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogen base. There are four kinds of nitrogen bases in DNA. DNA’s nitrogen bases are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The order of the nucleotides determines the gene that an individual will have.

Genes are transcribed and then translated to form proteins. Transcription and translation, the two processes of protein synthesis, are explained below.

During transcription, the two strands of DNA unwind. One of the strands serves as a template for make an mRNA strand. Each set of three nucleotides on an mRNA is called a codon. These codons will be important in the second phase of protein synthesis called translation. After the mRNA is created during transcription, it migrates to the cytoplasm via a nuclear pore. 

During translation, mRNA, ribosomes, rRNA, tRNA, and amino acids come together to make the protein strand.

Once in the cytoplasm, the mRNA and ribosomes attach. The ribosomes serve as scaffolds that match the codons on mRNA’s to the anticodons on the tRNA’s. Anticodons are sets of three nucleotides on the base of a tRNA that are complementary to mRNA codons. On the top of the tRNA are amino acids.

As the ribosome moves down the mRNA during translation, additional tRNA anticodons are matched with the complementary mRNA codons. In this way, amino acids that form a protein are arranged in the correct order. When two amino acids are adjacent to one another, a peptide bond forms. The polypeptide chain continues to grow until a stop codon is reached.

At this point, the polypeptide chain is released from the mRNA strand. The polypeptide chain then forms into a primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary structure that give the protein its specific function within the cell and organism.

Explain how the economic prosperity of the 1920's was not truly built on a strong foundation using the key warning signs leading up to the Depression?

The prosperity of the 1920s was established, but to some degree, that prosperity was built on a foundation that wasn’t very solid. One of the issues that eventually brought down the economy is that too many people bought stocks without really investigating the true value of the companies in which they were investing. Many people had the attitude that they should buy any stock because the prices will keep rising because of the economic policies of the government. If the people had researched the companies in which they were investing more carefully, they would have realized the companies were overvalued.

Another aspect related to the stock market is that people continued to buy stocks even though they didn’t have the money to do so. They bought on margin, paying only ten percent of the actual costs and paying the balance on the installment plan. Thus, people willingly went into debt with some people investing their life savings in the stock market. At some point in time, a couple of crippling factors were going to kick into effect. Eventually, there would be too few new investors entering the market. During the 1920s, there were a lot of new investors. By the end of the 1920s, there weren’t many new investors coming into the market. This would eventually cause demand for stocks to drop along with their price. If the brokers were to call in their debts, most investors would have no choice but to sell their stocks in order to satisfy the margin calls. This would lead to many stocks being made available for sale, but few new buyers for the stock. This would lead to a significant drop in stock prices. This is where many people lost everything they had. Once the prices plummeted, what people believed to be their fortunes turned into nothing at all.

A third factor leading to the Great Depression was that banks invested their assets, including customers’ deposits, into the market. When the market collapsed, the banks didn’t have the cash to meet consumer demand. As a result, the banks failed, and more people lost their life savings.

Finally, poor decision-making by the Federal Reserve Board helped to create this allusion of a strong economy built on a solid foundation. The Federal Reserve Board should have acted to slow investment by raising interest rates in the 1920s. Instead, they kept them low, encouraging more investment. In the 1930s, the Federal Reserve Board should have lowered interest rates in order stimulate the economy. Instead, they raised them, causing the economy to slow down even more. The foundation of the economic prosperity of the 1920s wasn’t as strong as people believed.

What are the inherited gifts that the poet brings with her? Answer with reference to Maya Angelou's "Still I Rise."

Maya Angelou is an African-American writer. Her ancestors had endured outrageous atrocities as slaves for centuries. Proudly, however, she calls herself as their inheritor, and, jubilantly, says she brings with her “the gifts my ancestors gave.”

Maya has been handed down the legacy of oppression and neglect by her ancestors. The struggle for freedom of the blacks has continued for centuries. Despite spending countless “nights of terror and fear” and undergoing insufferable pain, her ancestors had persisted in their struggle against racism.

Maya inherits their never-give-up fighting spirit. Actually, giving up is not an option with her; she rather intends to rise high “like dust,” “like moons and like suns,” like tides and “like hopes.”

All their lives, Maya’s ancestors had nurtured the dream of attaining freedom and equality. She inherits their dream as an ancestral gift.

Nowhere in the poem does Maya sound dispirited or anxious. Her voice is, rather, ambitious, confident, fearless and buoyant. She knows the weight and value of the gifts she inherits. She wouldn't let her ancestors down. 

Therefore, Maya is not going to be one with “bowed head and lowered eyes;" instead she would rise “out of the huts of history's shame,” and “up from a past that's rooted in pain.” Overcoming “the terror and fear” that tormented her ancestors, she has become “sassy,” “haughty” and “sexy.” 

What kind of animal is Nag in the story "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi"?

Nag, and his wife Nagaina, are snakes.  Specifically they are cobra snakes.  Big, black cobras to be really specific.  

While wandering around the garden one day, Rikki-tikki comes upon Darzee and his wife.  The two Tailorbirds are in their nest crying.  Being a curious fellow, Rikki-tikki asks them what is wrong.  

"We are very miserable," said Darzee. "One of our babies fell out of the nest yesterday and Nag ate him."

Rikki-tikki immediately expresses his sympathies, and then asks about Nag.  Rikki-tikki says that he is new to the garden and doesn't know who Nag is.  Darzee and his wife are kept from answering the question, because Nag immediately sneaks up and surprises Rikki-tikki.  

Darzee and his wife only cowered down in the nest without answering, for from the thick grass at the foot of the bush there came a low hiss--a horrid cold sound that made Rikki-tikki jump back two clear feet. Then inch by inch out of the grass rose up the head and spread hood of Nag, the big black cobra, and he was five feet long from tongue to tail.

Nag doesn't even let Rikki-tikki ask for his name, because the big, black cobra immediately announces who he is and how great he is.  Obviously humility is not one of his characteristics.  

"Who is Nag?" said he. "I am Nag. The great God Brahm put his mark upon all our people, when the first cobra spread his hood to keep the sun off Brahm as he slept. Look, and be afraid!"

Rikki-tikki is momentarily frightened by Nag, but his fear doesn't last long.  Rikki-tikki soon remembers that his mother fed him dead cobras when he was baby.  Rikki-tikki figures that he has nothing to fear from something that is normally his food.  This entire introductory scene sets up the conflict between the likable, heroic mongoose and the detestable, evil cobras.

What does March like about Grace and Marmee?

March is first drawn to the slave woman named Grace.  He meets her when he is a young man working as a peddler in the southern United States.  Grace is a slave to Mr. and Mrs. Clement, who are plantation owners.  She is literate, which is unusual for a slave.  Grace has learned to read by a sort of necessity, because her mistress had wanted someone to read poetry to her.  March admires her kind and tender disposition.  She is a beautiful woman and March is physically attracted to her.  Grace later states that she feels he likes the idea of her more than her as a person:

He loves, perhaps, an idea of me: African, liberated. I represent certain things to him, a past he would reshape if he could, a hope of a future he yearns toward.

March later leaves and goes north.  It is there that he meets Marmee, the daughter of a minister.  She is spirited and has strong opinions.  March is in awe of her brilliant mind.  Like himself, Marmee is a dedicated abolitionist, which he admires.  She is courageous and even helps slaves escape north via the Underground Railroad.  She has a sharp temper when challenged, which March believes he can help her to control.  He describes her temper as "the lawless, gypsy elements of her nature."

What is Patrick Henry claiming "they" are doing?

I am going to assume that by "they," you mean Britain.  Henry makes many accusations against the British.  One complaint is that the British are not seriously considering the various protests, petitions, complaints, and requests the colony has brought to them.  He repeatedly uses the metaphor of the chains of slavery to describe the relationship between the colony and its sovereign. Moreover, Henry observes that the British army has massed troops in the colonies and that British warships are hugging the colonies' coasts.  He expects that the British plan to step up their efforts to keep the colonies under their control through force or the constant threat of it. Overall, Henry makes the point that the British have proven themselves over the previous decade to be unwilling to engage in any kind of authentic negotiations--hence his call to arms.

Why is Mr. Darcy so grumpy in Pride and Prejudice?

Near the end of the novel, Mr. Darcy explains his "grumpy" behavior:

"As a child ...I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles but left to follow them in pride and conceit."

He notes that as an only son, he was

"spoilt by my parents...allowed, encourage, almost taught to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond my family circle...."

He also says in the same passage that his parents taught him to look down on other people and see them as lesser beings.

In the novel, his behavior is called "proud." Essentially, Mr. Darcy blames his parents and his upbringing for his social failings, while at the same time insisting his mother and father didn't mean to make him that way. His wealth and social status also contribute to his grumpiness: he is used to everyone catering to his every whim and flattering him. After a while, as in the case of Miss Bingley, it begins to get on his nerves very badly. Part of his attraction to Elizabeth stems from the fact that she won't, to use a common phrase, "suck up" to him like almost everybody else does. He respects her for it, and is a little shocked at her daring. 

How do I analyze 'the bride within the bridal dress had withered like the dress and like the flowers and had no brightness left but The brightness...

One the most famous of Dickens’s creations, Miss Havisham sits in her wedding dress with the clocks all stopped at 20 minutes to 9:00, the exact time on her wedding day when she discovered she had been jilted. The line you quote comes at the end of a long passage of description in which Pip recalls the first time he laid his eyes on this interesting woman.

To analyze this paasage, we must imagine Pip as a child entering Miss Havisham's big room for the first time. Although it's daytime, the room is lit with candles. At first, as he comes closer to Miss Havisham he thinks she is dressed in white:

She was dressed in rich materials,—satins, and lace, and silks,—all of white. Her shoes were white. And she had a long white veil dependent from her hair, and she had bridal flowers in her hair, but her hair was white. Some bright jewels sparkled on her neck and on her hands, and some other jewels lay sparkling on the table.

From afar, she looks beautiful, but as Pip comes closer, he--and we as the readers--see she is no longer beautiful at all. Everything she wears is yellowed, and her bridal gown "withered." We can understand the gown as a symbol of Miss Havisham herself, also yellowed and withered with age.

As Pip draws closer, he senses  that all is not as he had expected. Things that to his mind "ought to be white" are not. Other oddities include that fact that Miss Havisham wears only one shoe. These outward representations in clothing reflect a soul that has also "withered," but the young Pip doesn't yet have the analytical abilities to figure this out.

In this passage, the adult Pip presents himself as the young child who sees, absorbs and doesn't fully comprehend how damaging Miss Havisham's inability to move on from her trauma will be. That the adult Pip narrates this scene is indicated by this line:  "It was not in the first few moments that I saw all these things, though I saw more of them in the first moments than might be supposed."

Settings, including clothing, are an important way Dickens establishes what his characters are like. Through her clothes, we see the dismal effects of loneliness and isolation on this woman. But we note too that all is not withered: Miss Havisham's eyes are bright. It's significant that Dicken's repeats the word "brightness" twice. This suggests that his "withered" creation still has life inside her despite the decay all around her, and this brightness, as unnatural as the "wax candles" that light the room, foreshadows the trouble she will cause. 

On what page does Atticus say to Scout, "if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never...

In Chapter 3, on page 39, Atticus teaches Scout the importance of understanding others' perspectives. Scout is a naive child with a quick temper at the beginning of the novel. Like most children, Scout is unaware of how other people view certain situations. Her narrow perspective gets her into trouble on the first day of school. In Chapter 3, following a misunderstanding with her teacher, Scout goes home and tells her father about her rough first day of school. Scout tells Atticus that she would like to stay home for the remainder of the school year. Atticus encourages Scout to consider the viewpoint of other people, and "climb into their skin and walk around in it" to understand their perspective. He explains to Scout that Miss Caroline made an honest mistake handing Walter Cunningham a quarter because she was unaware of his family's background. Scout tried to explain Walter's situation and upset Miss Caroline in the process. Following her father's lesson, Scout tries her best to see things from other people's point of view. Later on, when Jem is moody after retrieving his pants from the Radleys' yard, Scout attempts to "walk in his shoes" to understand how he is feeling.

What can a biology major lead to?

There are a number of career options for biology majors. Being a teacher myself, I would suggest teaching as one of the career options. A biology major can also go to medical school and become a doctor. They can also look for research positions. However, these options require further study. In some cases, this means years of extra work, especially if you are planning to do a doctoral degree. Without any further study, biology majors can apply for junior level research positions in a clinical setup or at research companies and universities. Science writing is also an upcoming job, although a number of people do it part-time and not as a full-time occupation. Biology majors find can find employment at universities, hospitals and medical centers, research organizations, zoos, national parks, government agencies, and pharmaceutical companies, among many others.

Hope this helps.

Why is sameness so important in Jonas' community?

Sameness in The Giver is a means of controlling the people in a few ways.  It is human to want to acquire more than you have, and if there are no choices of things to acquire, the temptation should at least theoretically be removed.  People who have no reason to strive are far easier to control than those who do strive. You meet their basic needs and they remain content. This sameness eliminates what might be class tensions in a normal society.  Everyone, with the exception of the elders, is the same, one class of people who are not competing with one another. Given one class of people who are the same, the governance of the society is far easier, one set of rules for everyone, with a blanket application for all, no need for any judgements or discretion. Sameness makes everyone in the society fungible in most ways, so that any woman can be designated to set up household with any man, and any two children can be chosen to be placed into that household. So there is an ease of administration for the ruling elders.   Sameness is also meant to remove envy, which prevents arguments and theft.  If everyone has the same possessions, the same sort of housing, and so on, there is no reason to envy anyone else, which keeps resentment and argument down and which removes any motive to take from others. This, too, makes the community easier to rule and control. 

What is unusual about the way the narrator tells his story? How does he represent Porphyria's actions and emotions in the poem "Porphyria's Lover"?

The narrator's presentation of Porphyria's feelings and actions is unusual because he retains the same tone even after he's described the way he's murdered her.  It happens so quickly, and he speaks of it so lovingly that we could almost miss that it even happens.  The narrator rejoices that Porphyria loves him, and he wants to preserve this perfect moment.  After he strangles her with her own hair, she opens up her eyes and says that they "Laughed [...] without a stain."  He describes her cheek as "Blush[ing] bright beneath [his] burning kiss," as though she could still flush or feel joy or pain.  He describes her head as "rosy," like she could feel happy or "glad" that her will has been honored: that they can now be together forever.  In short, the narrator seems to have no sense of the fact that by attempting to preserve the perfect moment, the perfect feeling, he has destroyed it.  This is dramatic irony: we realize something that the narrator has not.  This presentation of Porphyria's feelings, then, is quite tension-filled and off-putting because we realize that the narrator has ruined his love while he continues to believe that he has saved it.

If a rabbit is homozygous dominant for black fur, then what is the rabbit's genotype?

If we allow “B” to represent the dominant allele for black fur and “b” to represent the recessive allele for fur color, then “BB” could represent the genotype of a rabbit that is homozygous dominant for black fur.

Alleles are varieties of genes. Alleles can be dominant or recessive. A dominant allele is the “stronger” variety of a gene. Dominant alleles are indicated by a capital letter. The capital letter used is often the first letter of the dominant trait that is being represented. A recessive allele is the “weaker” variety of the gene. Recessive alleles are represented by lowercase letters. The lowercase letter that is used is usually the first letter of the dominant allele that is being represented.

A genotype is the genetic combination of alleles that an individual has for a trait.  Phenotypes are the physical representation of a genotype.  Because dominant alleles are “stronger” than recessive alleles, only one dominant allele is needed to produce a dominant phenotype.

Genotypes can be homozygous dominant, heterozygous, or homozygous recessive. Homozygous dominant genotypes have two dominant alleles and will show the dominant phenotype. A heterozygous genotype has one dominant and one recessive allele. Because a heterozygous genotype contains a dominant allele, it will also show the dominant phenotype. Homozygous recessive genotypes contain two recessive alleles. Having a homozygous recessive genotype is the only way an individual can show the recessive phenotype.

Do you agree that the first past the post system in the US is unfair?

Different people will have different answers to this question.  I will give an argument for and an argument against the idea that the first past the post system is unfair.  You can look at these arguments and decide which one you agree with.

Some people would say that the first past the post system is fair.  They would argue that whoever gets the most votes should be the person who is elected to office.  After all, they would say, democracy is supposed to be about majority rule.  The candidate who gets the most votes has the support of the most people and therefore should be the one elected.  This is an eminently fair system.

On the other hand, some would say that this system is unfair because it ignores the voices of the people whose candidate did not win.  These people would ask why (for example) the voices of the 55% of the voters who choose one candidate should be heard while the voices of the 45% who voted for a second candidate should be ignored.  This is surely unfair to the people whose candidate does not get the most votes.  Those people deserve to be represented as well.  Therefore, the first past the post system is unfair.

Which of these arguments makes the most sense to you?

How can we encourage Americans to support a war?

During a war, it is important to be able to get our people to support the war effort. During World War I and World War II, several actions were taken to get people to support the war.

During World War I, the Committee on Public Information was created to encourage Americans to support the war effort. Giving speeches, making posters, and writing pamphlets were methods used to tell Americans how important it was to support the government’s war effort. In both World War I and World War II, Americans were encouraged to plant their own gardens, called victory gardens, so there would be more food for the soldiers. In both World Wars, Americans were encouraged to buy bonds to help pay for the war. In World War I, Americans were urged to not eat bread and meat on Wheatless Mondays and Meatless Tuesdays. During World War II, the government required people to limit their use of meat, sugar, and other supplies through the system of rationing. These sacrifices were made so there would be ample supplies of food and other supplies for the soldiers.

Most wars are difficult to fight and win. If the people support the war effort, it is a big, helpful step to gaining victory in the war.

Factors affecting breathing rate, and how?

The main factors affecting breathing rate are the levels of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the blood, and the blood's pH. The circulatory system has many, many small capillaries that are next to the alveoli in the lungs. Oxygen and carbon dioxide move from the area where the concentration of each is higher to the area where each is lower. When a breath is taken the air breathed in is usually higher in oxygen, and lower in carbon dioxide, than that being returned via the veins from the body. The gases diffuse across the cell membranes; oxygen is then taken by the arteries to the body's cells and carbon dioxide breathed out. Oxygen is required by various process in the body and carbon dioxide produced and eliminated. When an animal is at rest it needs relatively less oxygen than if it is active. When it is moving faster more carbon dioxide is produced and more oxygen needed and its respiratory rate increases. Sensors in the respiratory center in the brain and in the carotid artery and aorta sense the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels and the resuling pH, and send impulses to the muscles involved in breathing to either increase or decrease breathing rate.

This is why when someone hyperventilates it is helpful to have the person to breathe into a bag. When the person "can't catch their breath", they do not need more oxygen--they need to increase the level of blood carbon dioxide so the the stimulus to take another breath is restored.

What does Charlie's failure to understand the tests reveal about his personality and abilities in "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes?

Charlie's failure to understand the tests he is given in "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes reveals a couple of things about his abilities and his personality. First of all, it shows that his IQ is pretty low because he has a difficult time grasping simple concepts. Even after the inkblot test (Rorschach) is explained to him, he still does not understand. 

"He said pepul see things in the ink. I said show me where. He said think. I told him I think a inkblot but that wasnt rite eather. He said what does it remind you--pretend somthing. I closd my eyes for a long time to pretend. I told him I pretned a fowntan pen with ink leeking all over a table cloth" (Keyes 2).

Charlie's low intelligence prohibits him from understanding what is being asked of him in identifying pictures within the inkblots. 

The second set of tests Charlie is given asks him to make up stories about the pictures he sees. This time, we learn more about Charlie's personality because he tells the test proctor he cannot make up stories. When asked why, he says that making up stories is the same thing as lying. Charlie says he always gets caught when he tells a lie, so he won't do it. 

"I told her how can you tell storys about pepul you never met. I said why shud I make up lies. I never tell lies any more becaus I always get caut" (Keyes 3).

Charlie is honest and naive. When he takes the final test, finding his way through a paper maze while Algernon, the mouse, runs the same physical maze, Charlie is disappointed in himself when Algernon wins ten times in a row. This shows us that there must also be at least a little competitiveness in Charlie. 

Compare and contrast the social criticism of Goldsmith and Swift. What similar issues do we face today?

This appears to be a description of a fairly long paper. Your key to completing it successfully will be to discover two issues that are addressed by the very different works by Swift and Goldsmith. One possible is looking at the effects of income on marriage.

One issue very much in the new today in income inequality. Swift, in his satire, "A Modest Proposal", is concerned with the extremely poverty of the Irish Catholics, and in particular, their inability to provide food for their children. A good starting point for thinking about marriage and child poverty in current society is:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/marriage/etc/poverty.html

Goldsmith addresses the effect of income on marriage at a different end of the social spectrum, but his satire still has relevance in countries such as India where arranged marriages prevail and it is difficult for young people to marry those of different castes or economic backgrounds due to parental pressure. A good article on this subject is:

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21663246-more-and-more-young-indians-are-choosing-their-own-spouses-love-and-money-conquer-caste

A comet orbits the Sun in a highly eccentric orbit. When the comet is at perihelion, a distance d = 4 billion meters from the Sun, the comet's...

The comet goes around the Sun in a highly elliptic orbit so that its distance from the Sun at perihelion is 9 billion meters at it is 20 billion meters at aphelion.

The velocity of the comet at a distance r from the Sun, with mass M is given by the formula `v = sqrt(GM*(2/r - 1/a))` , where G is the gravitational constant and a is the semi major axis.

At perihelion, `r = a*(1 - e)` and at aphelion `r = a*(1 + e)` .

Using the values given:

9*10^9 = a*(1 - e) and 20*10^9 = a*(1 + e)

This gives `(1 + e)/(1- e) = 20/9`

9 + 9e = 20 - 20e

11 = 29e

e = 11/29

a = `9/(1 - 11/29)*10^9 = 14.5*10^9 `

At r = 9 billion m the velocity is 15000 m/s

`15000 = sqrt(GM*(2/(9*10^9) - 1/(14.5*10^9)))`

`GM*(2/(9*10^9) - 1/(14.5*10^9)) = 15000^2`

`G*M = 15000^2/(2/(9*10^9) - 1/(14.5*10^9))`

At r = 20*10^9

v = `sqrt(15000^2/(2/(9*10^9) - 1/(14.5*10^9))*(2/(20*10^9) - 1/(14.5*10^9)))`

= 6750

The comet has a velocity of 6750 m/s at the aphelion.

What are the most important studies that dealt with dominance theory and difference theory by Lakoff (1975)?

In 1975 Robin Lakoff wrote a book entitled Language and Woman's Place. In a related article called "Woman's Language," she talked about tactics women often use in conversation that men do not use as often, such as saying "kind of" or being overly polite. This implied that women are sociologically inclined to use insecure or less authoritative speech.

In the same year, a study was done by Don Zimmerman and Candace West UC Santa Barbara. This study was the inspiration for "dominance theory," and concerned the number of interruptions in conversation clips using both men and women. The high number of male interruptions and low number of female interruptions implied that men "dominate" conversation.

"Difference theory" came from a study by Deborah Tannen in which she suggested that women and men prioritize contrasting values, instead of the idea that men have stronger values than women. For instance, men prioritize independence while women prioritize intimacy.

A study by Janet Holmes in 1992 showed women using tag questions because they wanted to maintain a discussion, rather than because they were uncertain.

A study by Betty Dubois and Isobel Crouch in 1975 showed that men used even more tag questions, but this study never suggested that men were less confident because of this.

In reaction to Lakoff's article and book, William O'Barr and Bowman Atkins conducted a study in 1980 on language within a courtroom. They connected Lakoff's characteristics of female speech to those used by lower-class men as well. They determined that gender was not the deciding factor, but instead it was power.

Finally, another related study was conducted by Koenraad Kuiper (1991). Kuiper studied only males, only rugby players on one team. He determined that men use insults to create a team feeling of solidarity. This was intended to contrast with the idea that women use politeness and welcoming behavior to create solidarity.

Please provide 3 quotes showing how Atticus is setting a good example for his kids by taking the Tom Robinson case in Harper Lee's To Kill a...

Scout gets into a argument at school with Cecil Jacobs who tells her that her father defends "n*****s." She doesn't even understand what he's talking about, but it sounds bad enough to deny it. Afterwards, in an effort to explain to her why he is taking the Robinson case, Atticus says the following:

"The main one is, if I didn't I couldn't hold up my head in town, I couldn't represent this county in the legislature, I couldn't even tell you or Jem not to do something again" (75).

During Christmas time, Scout gets to go to Finches Landing to see Uncle Jack and other family. She gets into a fight with her second cousin Francis who calls her father a similarly bad name. Atticus later talks with Uncle Jack about Scout, and rearing children, and the discussion drifts to the Tom Robinson case as follows:

"But do you think I could face my children otherwise? You know what's going to happen as well as I do, Jack, and I hope and pray I can get Jem and Scout through it without bitterness, and most of all, without catching Maycomb's usual disease. Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand" (88).

Atticus knows that Scout is listening to him as he says everything and more in the above passage. He allows her to hear so she consciously thinks about what he is saying--all of which is very good for her to hear as they prepare for the upcoming case.

Finally, Atticus proves he is doing the right thing by taking the Tom Robinson case when he goes to the jail at night to protect anyone from harming his client. Atticus takes a light, a chair, and a book to read out in front of the courthouse. He shows his kids that he's willing to put himself in danger in order to stand up for justice. After the incident with the Cunningham lynch mob, Atticus shows forgiveness by saying the following:

"Mr. Cunningham's basically a good man. . . he just has his blind spots along with the rest of us" (157).

Atticus responds to every situation with patience and wisdom. He never lets anyone or anything shakes his morally strong foundation. As he passes through the trial of Tom Robinson, he also uses logic, education, and the power of knowledge to show how the bigotry and prejudice of the Ewells, and the town, are founded on ignorance and racism, rather than truth and equality. And when he loses the case, he is deeply sad for Tom when many people would simply move on with life. He teaches his children by example that justice means to defend each and every person no matter what.

What are some similarities and differences between Magna Carta and the Petition of Right?

Each of these important documents in English constitutional history had a similar purpose--to assert the fundamental liberties of English subjects, to protest that the King was violating these liberties, and to exact a promise from the monarch that he would respect English liberties in the future. The Petition of Right, issued to Charles I from Parliament in 1628, repeatedly refers to Magna Carta among other statutes and charters as the source of such liberties as trial by jury and habeas corpus. Many of the demands in the petition are the same as in Magna Carta, including parliamentary approval for taxation. One major difference is that by the time the Petition of Right was issued, Parliament was conceived, in theory at least, as a body that represented all of the English subjects. It also had become established as a permanent feature of the English constitution. Parliament, in short, was nonexistent in 1215, when Magna Carta was promulgated--in fact it was Magna Carta's stipulation that the King could not tax barons without their consent planted the seeds for what would become Parliament. Magna Carta made no pretense of being representative of all of the English people, a concept that simply did not exist in the thirteenth century. What it was, really, was a codification of the feudal relationship between the King (in 1215, this was John) and his nobles, or barons. Nothing about Magna Carta guaranteed basic rights to English subjects, though it would serve as the foundation for documents, such as the Petition of Right itself, that would do exactly that.

From the beginning, Hurston startles us: "I remember the very day that I became colored." Why does Hurston insist that one becomes colored? What...

The shift that occurs for Hurston's younger self was not really felt until she was thirteen and sent to Jacksonville to attend school. She writes, as follows:

"I left Eatonville, the town of the oleanders, as Zora. When I disembarked from the river-boat at Jacksonville, she was no more...I was not Zora of Orange County any more, I was now a little colored girl. I found it out in certain ways. In my heart as well as in the mirror. I became a fast brown -- warranted not to rub nor run."

In Eatonville, a small, predominately black town where black people were marginal but known by the whites who passed through, she is left alone to be herself -- even though that sense of self concerns the black people around her. She makes a note of this when she recalls singing and dancing for whites in exchange for dimes. She recalls how the colored people "deplored any joyful tendencies in me, but I was their Zora nevertheless." She is an innocent, unaware of how her song-and-dance routines satisfy white stereotypes about black people, but the locals love her anyway. 

In Jacksonville, a larger city, she is simply one among many black people -- all undesirable, all subjected to second-class citizenship. During the Jim Crow era, a black girl would have learned this from the signs posted all around her: "Coloreds Only," "Whites Only." She would not have seen these signs in Eatonville. In Jacksonville, it would have been made clear to her when and where she was welcome. In Eatonville, she would have been welcome everywhere. 

So, if you read the essay, you will see that there is no particular day on which she realizes that she is different from everyone else. Instead, it is something she learns in her day-to-day experiences in Jacksonville and, later, during her time at Barnard College. 

The notion of "becoming colored" is the realization that every young black person has of being "other," or outside of the white mainstream. It is learning that your presence as a black being is undesirable, questioned, suspect, and even hated.  

This, of course, is the social view of black identity. Hurston's view is quite different. She insists that she is "not tragically colored." She embraces black identity and, particularly, the artistic forms it has created. Toward the end of the essay, she describes herself at a jazz concert with a white friend. The music allows her to tap into something native and ancestral within her. The white friend, on the other hand, fails to connect with the music she has heard:

"He has only heard what I felt. He is far away and I see him but dimly across the ocean and the continent that have fallen between us. He is so pale with his whiteness then and I am so colored."

The notion of being colored takes on a different meaning here. It is a positive. Semantically, it works as a pun: she is "colored" in the sense of not being white, but she is also "colored" in the sense of having color -- vividness, authenticity. The white friend is dim and "pale" in comparison. He is the one lacking something.

Is Tom Robinson guilty?

Tom Robinson is found guilty by the all-white jury but is innocent of the charges of raping Mayella Ewell.  Atticus proves Tom is not guilty by showing that it was impossible for Tom to hit Mayella and blacken her right eye with his deformed left arm.   Mayella was hit by a man who was left-handed, and Atticus' defense of Tom strongly implied that Bob Ewell hit her.  Despite Atticus proving Tom Robinson was innocent, the jury’s racial and social views caused them to vote guilty.  An all-white jury would never take the word of a black man over a white woman and her father’s testimony.  The one bright spot in the trial was that the jury was in deliberation for several hours.  Miss Maudie commented that having the jury deliberate for so long was a good sign that things could change in Maycomb.

In the end when Tom Robinson tries to escape the injustice of his prison sentence, he is shot 17 times.  Atticus’ attempt to prove Tom Robinson’s innocence was doomed from the very beginning because of the deeply embedded social and racial values of Maycomb.  At least as readers, we understand the injustices of the trial and can empathize with one of the book’s most important mockingbirds, Tom Robinson.

What is the plot in the "The Most Dangerous Game?"

The plot of the story can be summarized in three statements. 

First, Rainsford, a world-renowned hunter, is on a hunting expedition with his friend, Whitney.  Along the way, Rainsford falls off the boat. Luckily for him, he is able to swim to shore.

Second, when he is on the island, he finds that it is inhabited by two men, general Zaroff and Ivan.  He also finds out that Zaroff is a hunter who has read his books. At first he is flattered and pleasantly surprised at Zaroff’s sophistication and hospitality. Later he is disgusted, because he realizes that Zaroff actually hunts humans, as he is bored with hunting animals.

Third, Rainsford is made to be hunted in Zaroff’s game. Rainsford unwilling plays. During the third day, he realizes that he cannot flee anymore; this would be suicide. So, he goes on the offensive and goes back to Zaroff’s house and waits for him. Presumably he kills him as the story ends with Rainsford sleeping on Zaroff’s bed.

What does The Odyssey say about the necessity of opposition for human growth? Please include examples.

The Odyssey, as is the case with most oral-traditional works, is highly agonistic, a story of conflicts that tend to be portrayed as purely oppositional, with one party winning and the other party losing. Conflict is seen simply as the human condition. 

The characters of an epic tend to be static rather than dynamic and The Odyssey is more of an action-adventure story than a psychological narrative. Odysseus himself changes little over the course of the poem; he begins as a clever, arrogant, slightly unscrupulous warrior, and retains that character throughout. The character who does develop is his son, the young Telemachus; one might be able to also make a case for Penelope showing her strength in adversity as well.

Although we do not know much directly about Penelope before the Trojan war, we can assume she would have been a typical upper class Greek woman, living a very sheltered life, not educated, and married off at the age of 12 to 14 to an older man. When left on her own with a young son, she devises a clever stratagem of weaving by day and unweaving by night to preserve Ithaca for Odysseus' return. Thus adversity has made her grow stronger.

Telemachus is an uncertain and rather diffident young man when he sets out on his quest to discover what happened to his father. As he completes his long and arduous journey, he develops more self-confidence and physical strength. In the scene where the suitors are challenged to string Odysseus' bow, Telemachus nearly succeeds, and is only prevented from doing so by Odysseus' stopping him. Evidence that the challenges he endured were devised to strengthen him by Athena can be seen in the following lines:

[Athena] gave no all-out turning of the tide, not yet, she kept on testing Odysseus and his gallant son, putting their force and fighting heart to proof.

What is the foreign policy that is supported by the use or threat of military force?

Many foreign policy strategies are supported or backed by the military power of the country employing those strategies. In the Cold War, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented direct conflicts between the Soviet Union and the United States because behind the actions of both was the threat of nuclear war.

One specific foreign policy strategy that relied on the immediate threat of military force was known as Gunboat Diplomacy or Big Stick diplomacy in the United States. The strategy relied on using immediate naval power to intimidate weaker nations into granting concessions. Widely employed by European empires in Africa and Asia in the nineteenth century, Gunboat Diplomacy became a way of projecting immediate military power into diplomatic negotiations. The United States employed this strategy when Commodore Perry forced Japan to open itself to American trade through the threat of immediate naval attack. 

How can we see colour in night where colour of a material can only be seen when a particular colour emits on the material and part of it is...

We really don't see color at night, at least not in very, very low light. You are correct that the eye perceives wavelengths of light that are reflected by a material. The wavelengths that are absorbed by the material are not bounced back into the eye, and we "see" the color of the wavelengths that are reflected back into the eye. Through the cones, one type of receptor in the retina, color is interpreted by the brain after the signal is transmitted through the optic nerve. There are also rods in the retina, another type of receptor that mainly is concerned with areas of black and white. The rods are much better able to function in low light than are the cones. When the light level is too low, the cones are not able to send much information on the color of an object to the brain and we do not see color much, if at all. This is something you can experiment with--try seeing how much light it takes to see color as you slowly increase light levels from pitch blackness.

More detail on theories of color perception, and on color blindness, are contained in the links below.

Why does an argon atom has 0 valency but an iron atom has two valency?

Valency is a measure of the combining capacity of an element. It is given in terms of the number of electrons an element is able to share or donate or accept to achieve a fully filled electronic orbital.

In case of argon, the atomic number is 18. It has an electronic configuration of `1s^2, 2s^2, 2p^6, 3s^2, 3p^6`. All the orbitals are fully filled and there is no need of any electron transfer or sharing. Thus, argon has a valency of 0.

Iron, on the other hand, has an atomic number of 26 and an electronic configuration of `1s^2, 2s^2, 2p^6, 3s^2, 3p^6, 3d^6, 4s^2`. An iron atom can either lose 2 electrons from the 4s orbital or lose an additional electron from 3d orbital to achieve higher stability. Thus, it has variable valency (2 or 3), like the other transition elements. And that is why we have ferrous and ferric compounds.

Hope this helps. 

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird why did Boo Radley put soap dolls in the tree?

Boo Radley left the soap dolls in the tree for Scout and Jem to find in order to reach out to them in friendship.

Boo Radley was the neighborhood recluse.  All of the children were afraid of him, and all of the adults pitied him.  Scout, Jem, and Dill were fascinated with him, and it was Dill who came up with the idea of trying make him come out.  The children engaged in many different plans over the summer to accomplish this.  They never had much direct contact with him, but they made an impression.

Boo Radley obviously began to feel a connection with the children.  He demonstrated it to them by leaving them presents in the knothole of a tree on the corner of his property.  The children did not know who the gifts were for, or what the point of leaving them there was, until they found the soap dolls.

I pulled out two small images carved in soap. One was the figure of a boy, the other wore a crude dress. Before I remembered that there was no such thing as hoo-dooing, I shrieked and threw them down. (Ch. 7)

Pennies, twine, and gum could have been there for any reason.  However, the soap dolls look specifically like Scout and Jem.  This is why Scout is frightened by them.  She thinks they are something like voodoo dolls, designed to hurt them.  Although Boo did not intend to frighten the children, making them look like Scout and Jem was a clear sign he wanted them to know the gifts were intended for them.

It took a great amount of skill to make the carvings.  Jem points out that they are the best he’s ever seen.  By carving the children’s likeness in soap and giving it to them, Boo is trying to reach out and communicate with the children in the only way he knows how.  He is too shy to talk to them directly.  He is showing them he likes them as friends.

As Scout gets older, she also gets wiser and more empathetic.  She comes to see things from Boo’s point of view rather than be afraid of him.

I sometimes felt a twinge of remorse … at ever having taken part in what must have been sheer torment to Arthur Radley—what reasonable recluse wants children peeping through his shutters, delivering greetings on the end of a fishingpole, wandering in his collards at night? And yet I remembered. Two Indian-head pennies, chewing gum, soap dolls, a rusty medal, a broken watch and chain. (Ch. 26)

At the end of the book, Boo Radley does come out—when Scout and Jem’s lives are threatened.  He saves them by killing Bob Ewell, and then takes them home.  Scout realizes that he is a sensitive and timid man, and also a good friend.

Boo was our neighbor. He gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch and chain, a pair of good-luck pennies, and our lives. … We never put back into the tree what we took out of it: we had given him nothing, and it made me sad. (Ch. 31)

Standing on the Radley porch, Scout sees things from Boo’s point of view.  She reviews the events of her childhood from his perspective.  She knows that he cares about them, and she cares about him.

The interactions with Boo Radley demonstrate Scout and Jem’s transition from child to young adult.  They go from viewing Boo as a boogey man to realizing that he is a sad, lonely man who just wants a friend.  Since none of the adults in Maycomb understand him, he reaches out to children who show him kindness.

What news does Balin bring of the land of the mountain in The Hobbit?

Balin brings news that Lake-town and Dale have been rebuilt.

After his adventures, Bilbo returns home and begins to write about his journey.  One day an old friend appears at his hobbit-hole.  Balin the dwarf arrives and Bilbo naturally asks for news.  He wants to know how things are going in Dale, Laketown and the land of the Lonely Mountain.

It seemed they were going very well. Bard had rebuilt the town in Dale and men had gathered to him from the Lake and from South and West, and all the valley had become tilled again and rich, and the desolation was now filled with birds and blossoms in spring and fruit and feasting in autumn. (Ch. 19)

The town of Dale owed much to Bard for destroying the dragon.  The town had to be rebuilt to replace all of the buildings that were destroyed when the dragon flew over the town and breathed fire on it.  In better times, Laketown had been an important center of trade.  After the defeat of the dragon, it could be again.

And Lake-town was refounded and was more prosperous than ever, and much wealth went up and down the Running River; and there was friendship in those parts between elves and dwarves and men. (Ch. 19)

The Master of Laketown had run off, because he fell to “dragon-sickness” and disappeared into the Waste, taking most of the gold with him.  Balin tells Bilbo that the new master is wiser.  He is also very popular and credited with the town’s new prosperity.

The new master is a friend to the dwarves, and the elves.  This is new as well.  The different races of the Lonely Mountain are cooperating and getting along, after the drama of the Battle of Five Armies.  All is well now that the dragon is gone and, for the moment, so are the goblins.

What can you conclude from the lines: "There came forth in return only a jingling of the bells. My heart grew sick--on account of the dampness of...

Montresor calls to Fortunato twice and receives no answer. 

No answer still. I thrust a torch through the remaining aperture and let it fall within. There came forth in return only a jingling of the bells. My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so.

These words are hard to understand because we cannot tell whether the jingling of the bells was caused by the torch hitting Fortunato's hat or whether he was shaking his head. It seems probable that Poe wanted to indicate that Fortunato was still alive but shaking his head in despair and refusing to be tormented by Montresor any further. Another possible interpretation is that the torch fell on Fortunato and he had to shake it off to keep from being burned.

As far as the sentence about Montresor's heart growing sick, the reader must realize that Montresor is momentarily horrified and perhaps even regretful for what he has done to another man. Montresor does not want to acknowledge this even to himself, so he rationalizes: he attributes his feelings to the dampness of the catacombs.

Poe makes many references to the dampness of the catacombs. His intention seems to be to assure the reader that Fortunato will not die of thirst. He will lick water off his own hands and off the granite wall to which he is chained. This makes his situation all the more horrible, because he will have to die by starvation. A man might live without water for a week, but he can survive for a month without food. Part of the horror of this story is evoked by the thought of what it will be like for the prisoner to die standing up in the darkness, wasting away for lack of food, and hoping against hope that someone might find him--even that Montresor might have a change of heart and come back and release him.