What is the difference between a tree and a shrub?

Trees and shrubs both have wood parts, while other kinds of plants, such as herbs, do not. A tree has a single perennial straight trunk that is, at the height of 4.5 feet above the ground, is at least three inches in diameter. In addition, a tree must reach at least 13 feet at its stage of mature growth (some definitions state that the tree must reach 20 feet and that its trunk has to...

Trees and shrubs both have wood parts, while other kinds of plants, such as herbs, do not. A tree has a single perennial straight trunk that is, at the height of 4.5 feet above the ground, is at least three inches in diameter. In addition, a tree must reach at least 13 feet at its stage of mature growth (some definitions state that the tree must reach 20 feet and that its trunk has to be two inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground). A shrub, on the other hand, has several perennial trunks that may either grow straight up or may grow near the ground.  A shrub can also have several stems coming from its base. The trunk of a shrub is less than three inches in diameter and its height is lower than 13 feet (or 20 feet, according to some definitions) when it is fully grown. 

Why does the image of silence play an important role at this point in Of Mice and Men?

In Of Mice and Men, the image of silence plays a vital role in communicating the difficulty with emotional commitment during the time period.

The characters in Of Mice and Men struggle with poverty. The financial conditions that characters like George, Lennie, or Candy experience are trying. However, Steinbeck shows that poverty can also be emotional.  This emotional poverty prevents characters from supporting one another. Steinbeck shows emotional poverty is just as crippling as financial...

In Of Mice and Men, the image of silence plays a vital role in communicating the difficulty with emotional commitment during the time period.

The characters in Of Mice and Men struggle with poverty. The financial conditions that characters like George, Lennie, or Candy experience are trying. However, Steinbeck shows that poverty can also be emotional.  This emotional poverty prevents characters from supporting one another. Steinbeck shows emotional poverty is just as crippling as financial challenges.

Steinbeck illuminates this when he discusses "the silence" in chapter three. When Carlson proposes shooting Candy's dog, Steinbeck writes that Candy "searched the faces" of the men in the bunkhouse for support and was unable to find any. The emotional poverty of the men in the bunkhouse is reflected in how no one speaks out against the killing of Candy's companion.  Even Candy is afflicted with a type of emotional poverty in how he does not bid the dog farewell. He is unable to voice any emotion about someone so close leaving him.  

When Steinbeck writes of "the silence," it reflects the emotionally impoverished condition of the men in the bunkhouse.  The silence shows a reality where people fail to stand up for one another.  "The silence" is the sum total of their emotional commitment.  While the men do not like the silence that has permeated the bunkhouse, they do not say or do anything to show solidarity to Candy or his dog because of their emotional poverty.  Steinbeck uses the silence to communicate this condition.

`yy' = 4sinx` Find the general solution of the differential equation

The general solution of a differential equation in a form of `y' = f(x) ` can

 be evaluated using direct integration. The derivative of y denoted as` y'` can be written as `(dy)/(dx)` then `y'= f(x)` can be expressed as `(dy)/(dx)= f(x)` .

For the problem `yy'=4sin(x)` , we may apply `y' = (dy)/(dx) ` to set-up the integration:

`y(dy)/(dx)= 4sin(x)` .

 or `y dy = 4 sin(x) dx`

 Then set-up direct integration on...

The general solution of a differential equation in a form of `y' = f(x) ` can

 be evaluated using direct integration. The derivative of y denoted as` y'` can be written as `(dy)/(dx)` then `y'= f(x)` can be expressed as `(dy)/(dx)= f(x)` .

For the problem `yy'=4sin(x)` , we may apply `y' = (dy)/(dx) ` to set-up the integration:

`y(dy)/(dx)= 4sin(x)` .

 or `y dy = 4 sin(x) dx`

 Then set-up direct integration on both sides:

`inty dy = int 4 sin(x) dx`

Integration:

Apply Power Rule integration: `int u^n du= u^(n+1)/(n+1) ` on `inty dy` .

Note: `y` is the same as `y^1` .

`int y dy = y^(1+1)/(1+1)`

            `= y^2/2`

Apply the basic integration property: ` int c*f(x)dx= c int f(x) dx` and basic integration formula for sine function: `int sin(u) du = -cos(u) +C`

`int 4 sin(x) dx= 4int sin(x) dx`

                    `= -4 cos(x) +C`

 Then combining the results for the general solution of differential equation:

`y^2/2 = -4cos(x)+C`

`2* [y^2/2] = 2*[-4cos(x)]+C`

`y^2 =-8cos(x)+C`

`y = +-sqrt(C-8cosx)`

Why is the government looking for Harrison Bergeron in Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron"?

At the beginning of the story, readers learn fourteen-year-old Harrison Bergeron was taken by the Handicapper General men and placed in jail.

And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away. 

Later on, breaking news reveals Harrison unexpectedly escaped from jail and is on the loose. Harrison was originally put in jail because he was suspected of plotting to overthrow the government. Now that...

At the beginning of the story, readers learn fourteen-year-old Harrison Bergeron was taken by the Handicapper General men and placed in jail.

And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away. 

Later on, breaking news reveals Harrison unexpectedly escaped from jail and is on the loose. Harrison was originally put in jail because he was suspected of plotting to overthrow the government. Now that Harrison has escaped, the government is searching for him because they believe him to be a threat to the government as a whole and to society's current state of "equality." 

"Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen," she said in a grackle squawk, "has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous."

Considering the handicaps Harrison is required to endure, it is clear he is incredibly strong and extremely intelligent, making him a capable candidate to overthrow the government and the Handicapper General. The government fears his escape will allow him to successfully overthrow the government once and for all. Harrison's rebellion and his attempts to bring an end to society's idea of "equality" show he has an ethical view of what it means to be truly equal.

For my upcoming English examination, I need to identify some of the stylistic features that Harper Lee uses in her novel To Kill a Mockingbird. If...

The narrative of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates clever use of stylistic devices.

Use of an epigraph

The novel opens with a dedication and an epigraph by Charles Lamb: "Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." This quotation ties to Lee herself, who studied law and who narrates in retrospect as a child in her book. It also relates to the words of Atticus when he talks to Jem after the trial. Jem asks him how the jury could find Tom guilty, and Atticus replies, "They've done it before and they did it tonight and they'll do it again and when they do it—it seems that only children weep" (Ch. 22). In other words, the prosecutor and the jury have lost the honesty and innocence of youth, when they may have been able to believe in the ideals of fairness and justice.

First-person narrator writing in retrospect

Lee's use of the adult Scout, who narrates as a little girl of five or six years old, brings to the narrative the ingenuous quality that allows young Scout to use words and ask about words that are offensive coming from adults. Thus, Lee manages to present a realistic look at the Jim Crow South of the 1930s. Also, Scout asks about words' meanings, thus allowing the character of Atticus to express another point of view. In this way, young readers are allowed on their own to deduce from the narrative the injustices that have been done, making for a more powerful narrative.

Social issue novel and bildungsroman

The narration by a more sophisticated adult Scout, but in the voice of an innocent child, allows for a more candid examination of the race issue. The novel also works as a bildungsroman or coming-of-age novel, as Scout moves from childhood innocence to knowledge of racism and social bias and injustice.

Use of symbolism

The use of the mockingbird as a symbol of innocence is effective in connoting the cruelty of the rumors and jokes about Boo Radley and the accusations against Tom Robinson.

Use of imagery

Lee's final chapter (31) is rich with imagery and summarizes much of what has transpired in the narrative in a rather quaint and pictorial style that leaves readers with a lasting impression of the major scenes in the novel. For instance, this passage is rich in visual imagery:

Street lights winked down the street all the way to town. I had never seen our neighborhood from this angle. There were Miss Maudie's, Miss Stephanie's—there was our house, I could see the porch swing. . . .

Daylight . . . in my mind, the night faded. It was daytime and the neighborhood was busy. (31)

As Scout stands on the Radleys' porch, she demonstrates that she has learned the lesson taught her by her father because as she looks around, she has "climbed into the skin" of Boo Radley by envisioning what he may have seen as he watched through his windows.

What role does imagination play in writing or reading "A Doll's House"?

To understand how imagination was used in writing the play, one must understand the culture of Norway at the time Henrik Ibsen wrote the play. As Nora notes when Torvald refuses to sacrifice his honor for her, "Millions of women have done so." That is, women of the time knew they were meant to serve either their fathers or their husbands. Women were not allowed to borrow money, nor were they legally entitled to control their own money. Married middle-class women had few options; they had nothing that was legally theirs and were not as highly educated as their male counterparts. Divorces were only granted when both spouses agreed to it. Even if Torvald did agree to it, Nora would be stigmatized and without a means to support herself due to a lack of jobs for women of Nora's class stature. She would lose everything she owned during her marriage, and she would face a society that felt her place was as a mother and wife only.

Ibsen's personal reason for writing the play came as a result of Norway's culture. Nora's story was inspired by Ibsen's friend Laura Kieler. Kieler, like Nora, borrowed money to support her husband. She hoped Ibsen would help her publish a book and planned to use the money she made from selling her manuscript to repay the loan. Ibsen refused to help her. When her husband found out, he had Kieler committed to an asylum. When Kieler got out, she begged for her husband to take her back. He reluctantly did.

Seeing his friend put through such a terrible ordeal was a major source of inspiration for Ibsen. This is where imagination comes into A Doll's House. Though the basics of the story are the same, Ibsen changed the outcome by imagining a version of Norway where Kieler's proxy, Nora, could walk away from the confines of her strict role as a wife and mother without any kind of stigma or overwhelming hardship; she was allowed a chance at an independent life. In fact, Torvald becomes the one pleading for Nora to stay with him. When presented with the reality that the world will scorn her, Nora says simply that she "can pay no heed to that!" Though a positive outcome, it was one unlikely to take place in Norway's reality at that time. Ultimately, the play is a more idealistic and feminist reflection of Ibsen's reality. 

A Doll's House is laden with symbolism. There are countless ways to read and interpret the text of the play. Imagination is crucial in grasping the symbolism in the play—for example, the title itself and the likening of the protagonist to a doll in her own home. Nora tries to keep up the appearance of the house as her main job, feeling that that is her only purpose. Torvald spends as much time as he can in his office, the place where is he most sure of his image as a successful husband and worker. By the end of the play, as New Year's Day approaches, Nora recognizes the house as a sort of prison and leaves. Nora's marriage is ending, and she is going forth to a new period of her life, outside the established setting of the play, the doll's house, into the unknown. The setting is more than just where the play takes place; it is central to Ibsen's critique of the female role in a male-driven society.

In The Merchant of Venice, how does Portia encourage the prince of Morocco when he displays his vanity?

The verbal exchange between the prince of Morocco and Portia occurs at the beginning of Act ll, Scene 1. The prince has obviously arrived to chance his luck to win Portia's hand by participating in the lottery her deceased father concocted. The prince blathers on about his greatness and asks Portia not to discriminate against him because of his darker complexion. He comes across as quite boastful and conceited.

Portia's retort encourages him. She informs...

The verbal exchange between the prince of Morocco and Portia occurs at the beginning of Act ll, Scene 1. The prince has obviously arrived to chance his luck to win Portia's hand by participating in the lottery her deceased father concocted. The prince blathers on about his greatness and asks Portia not to discriminate against him because of his darker complexion. He comes across as quite boastful and conceited.

Portia's retort encourages him. She informs the prince that her choice for a husband is not limited only to what she might see as attractive but that the lottery bars her from making any choice whatsoever. In this sense, then, the prince has as much a chance as any of her suitors.

In response, the prince thanks Portia for her kind remark and begins bragging again about his prowess as a soldier and the quality of his courage—all skills he would use to win Portia's heart. He alludes to characters in Greek mythology when making the point that just as Hercules might lose a sought-after prize to a weaker man in a lottery because of destiny, he too could lose out on winning Portia's hand. The prince evidently deems himself the equal of Hercules and Alcides, both heroic characters in Greek literature. He states that he would die of grief if he should, similarly, lose Portia to a lesser man.

Portia informs him that he should take his chance or decide not to choose. If he does choose and loses, he is forbidden from ever approaching another woman in way of marriage, since this is one of the requirements of the lottery. The prince accepts and is eager to try his luck. Portia stays him and advises that they must first proceed to the temple where he would have to make a solemn oath to abide to the conditions of the lottery. He can then try his luck after they have had dinner.

Why did the federalist party collapse?

The Federalist Party was one of the first political parties when the United States began. 

The War of 1812 brought about the end of the Federalist Party. When the War of 1812 began, most of the Federalist party disagreed with it due to the fact that trade was inhibited with England during the war. Since many of the members of the Federalist party earned an income through trade, the War of 1812 was detrimental to...

The Federalist Party was one of the first political parties when the United States began. 

The War of 1812 brought about the end of the Federalist Party. When the War of 1812 began, most of the Federalist party disagreed with it due to the fact that trade was inhibited with England during the war. Since many of the members of the Federalist party earned an income through trade, the War of 1812 was detrimental to their livelihood. Eventually, the Federalist party became so desperate that they threatened to break apart from the Unites States of America if the War of 1812 did not come to an end immediately. Unfortunately for the Federalist Party, this threat backfired. As soon as the peace treaty (Treaty of Ghent) was signed in 1814, a majority of Americans saw the Federalist party to be traitors. This viewpoint from the American people led to the end of the Federalist Party.

What are conflicts that Stella and Blanche deal with in A Streetcar Named Desire?

Stella and Blanche deal with a great many conflicts throughout the story.  I'll break the conflicts up by character, and then I'll further break them down into internal and external conflicts.  

I'll start with Stella Kowalski.  I believe that Stella's main internal conflict is her struggle with knowing that her sister, Blanche, doesn't approve of her life, residence, relationship with Stanley, etc.  She feels beholden to both her sister and her husband, but Stanley...

Stella and Blanche deal with a great many conflicts throughout the story.  I'll break the conflicts up by character, and then I'll further break them down into internal and external conflicts.  

I'll start with Stella Kowalski.  I believe that Stella's main internal conflict is her struggle with knowing that her sister, Blanche, doesn't approve of her life, residence, relationship with Stanley, etc.  She feels beholden to both her sister and her husband, but Stanley and Blanche are on complete opposite ends of a spectrum.  For most of the play, Stella fervently supports and protects her sister.  

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

That's why Stella's decision to stick with Stanley at the end of the play is so shocking.  She had to have struggled with the possibility that Stanley did indeed rape Blanche.  She has an inner struggle of how to believe something like that and continue to live with him.  

I believe that Stella's main external conflict is with her husband.  He's an abusive husband, and she has physical and emotional wounds because of it.  

As for Blanche, I feel that everything about her is conflicted.  She struggles with knowing that her family's property was foreclosed on because of her financial situation.  She struggles with the loss of her husband.  She feels that she is partly to blame for his suicide because she discovered and chastised him for his homosexuality. Blanche also struggles with her grip on reality, and she is eventually committed to a mental asylum.

Blanche's external conflicts mainly deal with her relationship with Stanley.  The two simply do not get along.  The conflict eventually ends up with Stanley raping Blanche.  

In Among the Hidden, how does Jen describe the city?

In Among the Hidden, Jen describes the city as boring.

Both Jen and Luke are the third children in their families, which means that they have to hide from the Population Police. In the story, Luke is aghast when Jen tells him that she regularly visits the mall with her mother. Jen explains that the backseat of her parents' car is hollowed out: her father had it custom-built so that she could hide during...

In Among the Hidden, Jen describes the city as boring.

Both Jen and Luke are the third children in their families, which means that they have to hide from the Population Police. In the story, Luke is aghast when Jen tells him that she regularly visits the mall with her mother. Jen explains that the backseat of her parents' car is hollowed out: her father had it custom-built so that she could hide during road trips. 

On this particular foray into the city, Jen rode in the hollowed out backseat for two hours. At the mall, she presented her forged shopping pass, identifying her as her mother's niece. Jen jokes that she may end up dead if the Population Police detect the forgery during a roadside stop.

Luke is flabbergasted at the risk Jen took. However, he is genuinely perplexed when Jen describes the city as an extremely boring place. To Jen, the city is boring because it is associated with shopping at malls. Since Jen finds shopping to be a boring activity, she concludes that the city is a boring place to visit.

What are Odysseus's admirable traits? Name them and support them.

Odysseus is extremely clever. When he finds himself trapped in Polyphemus's cave, he has the foresight to tell the cyclops that his name is "Nobody." The reader really has no idea why he would tell this particular lie until much later, when we see that Odysseus was thinking very far ahead. When Odysseus and his men blind Polyphemus and the other cyclopes come running to his cave to check on him, Polyphemus tells them that...

Odysseus is extremely clever. When he finds himself trapped in Polyphemus's cave, he has the foresight to tell the cyclops that his name is "Nobody." The reader really has no idea why he would tell this particular lie until much later, when we see that Odysseus was thinking very far ahead. When Odysseus and his men blind Polyphemus and the other cyclopes come running to his cave to check on him, Polyphemus tells them that "Nobody" is hurting him, so they leave! We can see now what a clever decision this was on Odysseus's part.

Further, Odysseus is a responsible and compassionate leader. When some of his men eat the lotus fruit and no longer want to return home to Ithaca, Odysseus is unwilling to leave them behind. He knows that in reality they want to return home, and he knows their families need them.  Therefore, he physically muscles them back to the ship, and ties them up so they cannot escape.

Finally, Odysseus is extremely fair. When his ship must sail past Scylla, he knows there is a good chance that six of his men will be eaten by the monster. Rather than hide below deck and save himself, however, Odysseus casts his lot with his men and remains above deck because it is the fair thing to do. He doesn't consider his men somehow more dispensable than he is.

Discuss the foreshadowing in Nora’s conversation with Anne-Marie in A Doll's House.

In Act II of A Doll's House, Nora has a conversation with her nursemaid, Anne Marie, in which the two discuss the nursemaid's history with Nora. 

We learn that Nora was raised by Anne Marie. Moreover, she has remained with Nora, even after the latter's marriage, and is now taking care of Nora's children. 

Nora has a great deal of affection for Anne Marie. She also appreciates the work that the now-elderly woman has done for Nora's kids. 

Yet, the conversation takes an interesting turn when Anne reminds Nora that she (Anne) was once a “girl in trouble,” and that the man who got her pregnant did nothing for her. Nora is sad to learn that the woman’s daughter has never forgiven her mother for having raised her out of wedlock.

To this, Nora responds by reminding Anne how kind and loving she has always been toward Nora’s family, and that Anne has a lot of motherly traits, regardless of what had happened in her life. Nora also adds,

Nora. And if my little ones had no other mother, I am sure you would--What nonsense I am talking! [Opens the box.] Go in to them. Now I must--. You will see tomorrow how charming I shall look.

Basically, Nora is saying that, if her children ever were to be without a mother, Anne would also care for them. However, Nora stops herself from thinking that way and shifts the conversation toward the topic of the ball. The foreshadowing is that of Nora’s children being without a mother.  We will learn, as the play goes on, that this is exactly what will happen.

Nora will leave the household, including her children, after experiencing the utter disappointment of Torvald’s reaction after learning that Nora had made a money transaction with Krogstad; a shady and vindictive employee that Torvald despises.  These types of transactions were considered inappropriate for women to make, especially with a man other than her husband. Moreover, this particular man was one of her husband’s worst employees, and one who personally dislikes and disrespects Torvald, as it is.

Rather than asking the rationale behind this transaction, which was one of personal sacrifice from Nora’s part, Torvald reacts uncontrollably. He is cruel, mean, and insulting to his wife. This is nothing remotely close to the reaction that Nora had always expected of her husband.

Nora hoped that Torvald would understand why she had to make such a deal with Krogstad in the first place. She also wished that  Torvald would be willing to take the blame for whatever went Nora’s way. She really yearned that Torvald would show his love this way. 

Then, a twist happens. Torvald receives a second letter from Krogstad in which the latter makes a truce and tells them that he will not blackmail anybody. However, the deed had been done.  It was too late to revert the ugly impression that Torvald’s original response had caused in his wife.  Disappointed and deflated, Nora finally sees the reality of her life:  She was her husband’s plaything, she has never been valued or appreciated in her marriage, and all her sacrifices have been worth nothing. She has never found herself, and she knows that this is the time to do it.

When she left her home, she also left her children motherless. This is the scary thought she foreshadows during her conversation with Anne. Sadly, it will become a reality in Nora’s life.

What was the significance of the People vs. De Bour, Heller vs. DC, Thompson vs. Oklahoma, and Roper vs. Simmons cases?

In People vs. De Bour, the court held that there were four levels of street intrusion involving police and individuals. Level One is where the officer has credible reason to request information from the individual; Level Two, where the officer has a founded suspicion about criminal conduct; Level Three, where the officer has reasonable suspicion about criminal activity; and Level Four, where the officer has probable cause to detain and arrest the individual.

The next main topic involves Heller vs. DC, where a Washington, D.C. special police officer, Dick Heller, sued the District of Columbia for the right to keep a handgun at home. In its decision, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to bear arms, even if that individual is unconnected to any state militia. Yet, the court also held that Second Amendment rights did not confer unlimited rights regarding firearm possession: it did not authorize anyone to carry any weapon, in any manner whatsoever, for whatever purpose.

In both the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court did not nullify all reasonable state laws regarding the use of firearms. It also did not establish any standard by which state gun laws can be evaluated. Read more about the Heller and McDonald cases at the Supreme Court blog.

As for the death penalty pertaining to juveniles, there are a few court cases you may be referring to. One is the 1988 Thompson vs. Oklahoma case, where the Supreme Court maintained that no juvenile under sixteen years old can be executed for a crime. In 1989, the cases of Stanford vs. Kentucky and Wilkins vs. Missouri led the Supreme Court to conclude that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the execution of juvenile defendants who are sixteen or seventeen years of age.

In the more recent 2005 Roper vs. Simmons case, the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) held that it was unconstitutional to execute a minor (anyone under the age of eighteen) for crimes committed. The justices held that the execution of a minor violated the Eighth Amendment clause against cruel and unusual punishment.

How does Shelley include the theme of Love in her book? And how does it still mean something in Modern Society?

Although Frankenstein deals mostly with heavier themes, love plays a role in the novel's plot and character interactions. Here are some prominent examples:

1. Victor Frankenstein's family: Victor describes his young life as very happy and pleasant. His family loves each other, and this love shapes his early life. It serves as an ironic contrast to his adult life.

2. Victor's relationship with Clerval: Henry Clerval is Victor's best friend, and he loves him like...

Although Frankenstein deals mostly with heavier themes, love plays a role in the novel's plot and character interactions. Here are some prominent examples:

1. Victor Frankenstein's family: Victor describes his young life as very happy and pleasant. His family loves each other, and this love shapes his early life. It serves as an ironic contrast to his adult life.

2. Victor's relationship with Clerval: Henry Clerval is Victor's best friend, and he loves him like a brother. It is a tragic twist when the monster kills Henry to get revenge on Victor.

3. Victor's relationship with Elizabeth: These two characters are close since childhood and eventually marry one another. Elizabeth is Victor's support system for part of his adult life, and she is very understanding and sympathetic. Unfortunately, Victor isolates himself and puts his wife at risk by not building the creature a mate; the monster reciprocates by killing Elizabeth on Victor and Elizabeth's wedding night.

4. Safie and Felix: Felix De Lacey and his beloved Safie are two of the members of the family that the monster observes when he lives outside their home. He learns about family and about true love between parents and children but also between husband and wife. The creature learns from Safie and Felix, as well as from his reading of Paradise Lost, that a man is meant to be paired with a female partner. He then petitions his creator, Victor, to build him a companion. Although disgusted, Victor originally agrees and works on the female creature; however, he eventually destroys her. This is a crucial plot point because after this, the creature's revenge knows no bounds.

5. Victor and the creature: The lack of love Victor has for his creature is also key to the novel as a whole. If Victor had cared for this being whom he brought to life and nurtured him like a real parent, the tragedies of the novel could have been avoided. 

How does the lack of love lead to Pecola's identity crisis?

Pecola Breedlove is the central character in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. The lack of love in Pecola’s life began when she was born. Her father, Cholly Breedlove, is an angry man who feels trapped in his marriage and fights constantly with his wife, Pecola’s mother, Pauline. He goes so far as to attempt to burn down his family’s home, which lands Pecola in a foster home. Her mother grew up believing she is ugly...

Pecola Breedlove is the central character in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. The lack of love in Pecola’s life began when she was born. Her father, Cholly Breedlove, is an angry man who feels trapped in his marriage and fights constantly with his wife, Pecola’s mother, Pauline. He goes so far as to attempt to burn down his family’s home, which lands Pecola in a foster home. Her mother grew up believing she is ugly and remains distant.

Pecola is continuously ridiculed by her classmates, other people in the town, and other children who pretend to befriend her, only to later make fun of her. Her parents show her no love, and even the two girls who live in the house Pecola is being fostered in keep their distance from her. This constant ridicule and isolation leads to Pecola wishing for blue eyes in the belief that this will make her beautiful. Pecola wants to literally change her appearance in order to fit in and feel accepted within her community, and she wants it so badly that after her father rapes her a second time, she descends into madness and believes she has the bluest eyes.

What would the advantage be for early Israelites to create and follow a monotheistic, messianic, law-based tradition rather than one of the other...

The reasons for the emergence of a monotheistic religion that supplanted (for some) earlier, polytheistic religions cannot be derived without at least some reference to the Bible, specifically the Hebrew Bible. Judaism as a monotheistic religion has its origins in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which comprise the Torah, and the origins of the Hebrew Bible are subject to considerable discussion. Some forms of monotheism did precede the emergence of Judaism; ancient Egypt practiced a form of monotheism known as Atenism, referring to the God Aten. Atenism, however, was not fully monotheistic, as it did not reject the notion of other gods per se but elevated the sun-disk god Aten to the place of primacy. Written histories were few and far between at the time, and the Bible is a principal source for the history of Judaism. In his Histories, Tacitus wrote of the origins of the Jews who populated the region the Romans called Palestine:

"It is said that the Jews are refugees from Crete, who settled on the confines of Libya at the time when Saturn was forcibly deposed by Jupitor...while there are many who think the Jews an Ethiopian stock, driven to migrate by their fear and dislike of King Cepheus. Another tradition makes them Assyrian refugees, who, lacking lands of their own, occupied a district of Egypt, and later took to building cities of their own and tilling the Hebrew territory and the frontier-land of Syria."

Later, Tacitus describes the beliefs of the Jews as follows:

"The Jews acknowledge one god only, of whom they have a purely spiritual conception. They think it imperious to make images of gods in human shape out of perishable materials. Their god is almighty and inimitable, without beginning and without end. They therefore set up no statues in their temples, or even in their cities, refusing this homage both to their own kings and to the Roman emperors."

Tacitus, as a more thorough reading of his writings reveals, was no admirer of the Jews. As a Roman senator, his loyalties were to the polytheistic empire that he served, and the Jews were viewed in a less than benign light. This suggests that the advantages that accrued from converting to Judaism in the period weren't always obvious; converts often faced the antipathy of adherents to other religions, like Tacitus. 

The question of what advantage was to be derived from adherence to a monotheistic religion is a bit problematic. It ignores the importance of the Torah to Judaism and instead assumes a more mercenary motivation behind the development of the theological aspects of the religion. Assuming one rejects the Hebrew Bible as untrue, one can suggest that the origins of Judaism as a monotheistic religion lay in rejection of polytheism out of some notion of moral, racial superiority. Or one can accept the Hebrew Bible as a legitimate source of historical information, which would lead one down a much more empathetic path. Remember that in the Bible, God commands Abraham to travel to a specific region for the purpose of establishing a home for His people. As told in the King James Version of the Book of Genesis (12:1-3):

"Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of they country, and from the kindred, and from they father's house, unto a land that I will whew thee:

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless these, and make they name grew; and thou shalt be a blessing."

If one takes the Bible literally, and many do, then a monotheistic Judaism was not created by people for their own advantage but rather born because God commanded it. Another history, the veracity of which is open to interpretation, is that of Flavius Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian writing in the first century AD, who wrote the following with respect to God's covenant with Abraham:

"Now Abram...at the command of God went into Canaan, and therein he dwelt himself, and left it to his posterity.... [H]e determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power." 

Jewish law is ancient and inseparable from the Hebrew Bible. We could make the case that there were few to no advantages to Israelites in the development of a monotheistic, law-abiding religion. Indeed, given the long history of anti-Semitism (known as "the oldest hatred" of humanity), it is highly questionable whether any advantage accrued to the Jews as a result of their adoption of a monotheistic religion. The argument, given the history of the last several thousand years, could be advanced that the Israelites would have been better off following blindly in the footsteps of others rather than going on a separate path. That, however, would have required a rejection of the notion of a covenant between one God and Abraham.

If one has to make a case for the advantages of a conversion to Judaism in the time period, it could be argued that a significant advantage accruing to the Israelites by virtue of their adoption of a monotheistic, law-based tradition would be their presumed success in securing their place in the universe. The covenant entered into between God and Abraham would cement the Israelites' advantage in defeating their enemies and establishing a permanent homeland in the territory specified by God. In the Book of Genesis (15:18), the Bible states that God promised to Abraham and his followers a substantial expanse of land:

"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Eurphrates:"

This covenant would be reaffirmed over the years, as when God addressed Moses, specifying the boundaries in which His people would live in peace. [Book of Numbers (34:1-13)]. By adopting, or accepting, the monotheistic religion that would become known as Judaism, the Israelites would be able to assert themselves among myriad enemy tribes and kingdoms secure in the knowledge that victory would be theirs. From a theological perspective, this is pretty significant, and it remains a religious foundation for many orthodox Jews today, even though many acknowledge the practical impossibility of any such development absent a major and highly visible sign from God that would be accepted by all those who stood in the way of the Israelites' determination to build a homeland within the boundaries specified by God.

By adopting a monotheistic religion, the Israelites would determine the word of God to be final; this would legitimize the Israelites' struggle for a homeland where they would be free from persecution. This, then, could be the principal advantage of a monotheistic religion.

What does the shepherd ask from his love In return?

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the poem The Passionate Shepherd To His Love by Christopher Marlowe. In the poem, the shepherd offers his love many gifts. All he wants in return is for his love to come and live with him.

As we read, we realize that the shepherd hopes to entice his love with flamboyant gifts. He promises her 'beds of roses' and a 'thousand fragrant posies.' As the poem...

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the poem The Passionate Shepherd To His Love by Christopher Marlowe. In the poem, the shepherd offers his love many gifts. All he wants in return is for his love to come and live with him.

As we read, we realize that the shepherd hopes to entice his love with flamboyant gifts. He promises her 'beds of roses' and a 'thousand fragrant posies.' As the poem progresses, the promised gifts become even more elaborate in substance. The shepherd shifts from the promised 'kirtle/Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle' to lined slippers with buckles of 'purest gold' and a belt made with 'straw and ivy buds,/With coral clasps and amber studs.' The modern equivalent would be an infatuated, young lover promising expensive cars, jewellery, designer clothing, or any number of ornate gifts to his girlfriend to entice her into moving in with him.

In the poem, the shepherd also plays up the attractions of his surrounding home by drawing his lover's attention to the natural beauties of the 'valleys, groves, hills, and fields,/Woods, or steepy mountains.' He tells her that he is willing to make her life very happy if she would just consent to come and live with him.

2. A boat starts traveling upstream at 5 knots. The stream itself is flowing in the opposite direction at 2 knots. The boat travels for 20 minutes...

I believe that this question is asking a straightforward velocity and distance question without having to calculate for things like friction and rates of acceleration and deceleration of the boat.  The reason that I have to assume this is because the question does not mention how long the boat took to accelerate to its stated rate of travel.  Additionally, turning around could affect the overall final location of the boat.  For example, did the boat turn around in a big "U" shape, or did it spin a 180 degree turn in a specific location?  My answer is going to assume that the boat was already moving at the 5 knot speed when the timing began, and the boat "magically" turned around on the spot and was immediately traveling downstream at 2 knots for the stated duration. 

If the boat is traveling at 5 knots upstream and the stream is flowing in the opposite direction at 2 knots, the boat is moving upstream at a speed of 3 knots relative to the shore.  The velocities are subtracted from each other because they are moving in opposite directions.  5-2=3.  

Distance traveled at a constant speed can be calculated by using the following equation: Distance = Rate x Time.  

Distance = 3 knots x 20 minutes

Some work needs to be done on the initial setup because knots is a rate of travel using hours, and the boat was timed in minutes.  You could convert 3 knots to meters per minute (92.6 meters/min) or to miles per minute (.0575 mi/min).  The goal is to get the knots time unit to be in minutes.  Conversely, you could convert minutes to hours.  This is more straightforward. 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour (.3333333333 hours).  Keep in mind that in all of these cases, you are forced to round off somewhere, so each answer is going to vary slightly from a direct comparison with the other calculations.  

Distance = 92.6 meters/min x 20 minutes

Distance = 1,852 meters

Distance = .0575 mi/min x 20 minutes

Distance = 1.15 miles

Distance = 3 knots x .33 hours

Distance = .99 nautical miles (upstream)

Whichever unit you choose to work with, that is how far upstream the boat traveled.  Use the same equation setup for how far the boat will travel downstream at a speed of 2 knots for 10 minutes (1/6 of an hour). 

Since the boat's speed is given in knots, I will stick to calculating distances in nautical miles. 

Distance = 2 knots x .167 hours

Distance = .334 nautical miles (downstream)

The boat went upstream first and travelled .99 nautical miles.  It then floated back downstream .334 nautical miles.  That means the total upstream travel is .99 - .334.  That comes out to .656 nautical miles upstream from the original launch location. 

Of course, the entire answer will change if the boat is actually traveling at at speed of 5 knots relative to the shore at the beginning of the problem.  

Distance = 5 knots x .33 hours

Distance = 1.65 nautical miles 

1.65 nautical miles upstream - .334 nautical miles downstream = 1.316 nautical miles upstream from the original launch location. 

How does Jem's understanding of the world about him, in particular human relationships, prepare him for life beyond childhood?

Throughout the novel, Jem matures and develops his perspective on life by listening to Atticus' lessons and witnessing prejudice firsthand. Atticus teaches Jem the importance of tolerance, courage, and standing up for innocent beings throughout the story. Jem learns about "real courage" from his experience with Mrs. Dubose, and Atticus teaches him about mob mentality. Jem also watches his father defend Tom Robinson in front of a prejudiced jury. After Jem witnesses Tom become a...

Throughout the novel, Jem matures and develops his perspective on life by listening to Atticus' lessons and witnessing prejudice firsthand. Atticus teaches Jem the importance of tolerance, courage, and standing up for innocent beings throughout the story. Jem learns about "real courage" from his experience with Mrs. Dubose, and Atticus teaches him about mob mentality. Jem also watches his father defend Tom Robinson in front of a prejudiced jury. After Jem witnesses Tom become a victim of racial injustice, he becomes jaded about the community of Maycomb. Jem loses his innocence and realizes that his kind neighbors are actually racists. He also becomes more sympathetic to the needs of innocent beings and displays his empathy by stopping Scout from squashing a rolly-polly bug. Jem's experiences and moral upbringing allow him to develop into a conscientious, brave, and tolerant person. Jem's perception of the world has allowed him to become a morally upright individual like his father. As Jem becomes older, he will probably follow in his father's footsteps by becoming an advocate for the oppressed and innocent.

In the poem "The Unknown Citizen," what does the Bureau of Statistics say about the unknown citizen?

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the unknown citizen was a model worker who served the greater community well.

He was a good worker who never got fired, and he "satisfied his employers" immensely as an employee. According to the Bureau, the unknown citizen was socially popular, fully insured, and resistant to extreme or unpopular convictions. By all indications, the unknown citizen adhered to socially-accepted views about popular life and culture. He was said to...

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the unknown citizen was a model worker who served the greater community well.

He was a good worker who never got fired, and he "satisfied his employers" immensely as an employee. According to the Bureau, the unknown citizen was socially popular, fully insured, and resistant to extreme or unpopular convictions. By all indications, the unknown citizen adhered to socially-accepted views about popular life and culture. He was said to have bought a paper everyday while he lived and to have reacted to advertisements predictably.

The unknown citizen was also regarded by the Bureau as the stereotypical model citizen who never veered from the truths his government expected him to adhere to: "That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;/ When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went."

Last, but not least, the unknown citizen was said to have had five children, the "right number for a parent of his generation." He was also said to never have interfered in his children's education, a fact that the Bureau finds especially commendable. In all, the Bureau views the unknown citizen as the ideal citizen.

Who is the main antagonist in Animal Farm?

In Animal Farm, the main antagonist is Napoleon. This becomes clear in Chapter Five when Napoleon forces Snowball to leave the farm as a result of their disagreements over the building of a windmill.

Once Snowball is gone, Napoleon begins the process of consolidating his power base. To do this, he uses Squealer's power of speech and his pack of guard dogs to ensure that the other animals obey his commands and do not...

In Animal Farm, the main antagonist is Napoleon. This becomes clear in Chapter Five when Napoleon forces Snowball to leave the farm as a result of their disagreements over the building of a windmill.

Once Snowball is gone, Napoleon begins the process of consolidating his power base. To do this, he uses Squealer's power of speech and his pack of guard dogs to ensure that the other animals obey his commands and do not attempt to speak out against him.

In Chapter Seven, the full force of Napoleon's power is apparent when he carries out a number of executions. This bloody act demonstrates the strength of his authority on the farm and the true horror of his reign.

By the end of the novel, his tyranny is made clear when the reader sees him walking on two legs and wearing human clothes. Napoleon has become the very evil that he helped to overthrow.

How does Richard Connell use characterization to develop the theme in his short story "The Most Dangerous Game"?

In "The Most Dangerous Game," characterization, or the way characters are portrayed through descriptions, thoughts, and actions, helps to build the theme of the story because the protagonist is dynamic. A dynamic character changes from the beginning of the story to the end; therefore, as Rainsford's character changes, a theme is revealed. For example, at the start of the story, Rainsford and Whitney talk philosophically about hunting. Whitney considers the fact that a jaguar has...

In "The Most Dangerous Game," characterization, or the way characters are portrayed through descriptions, thoughts, and actions, helps to build the theme of the story because the protagonist is dynamic. A dynamic character changes from the beginning of the story to the end; therefore, as Rainsford's character changes, a theme is revealed. For example, at the start of the story, Rainsford and Whitney talk philosophically about hunting. Whitney considers the fact that a jaguar has feelings of fear and pain during a hunt. Rainsford, on the other hand, tells Whitney, "Who cares how a jaguar feels?" This discussion about hunting builds a foundation for a theme about whether it is ethical to kill animals since they have feelings and suffer from pain.

Over the course of the story, both the protagonist and the theme develop as Rainsford discovers exactly what it feels like to be "a beast at bay." The theme evolves from the morality behind hunting animals to whether one is ever justified in killing another person. For instance, in the beginning, the question that points to the theme is whether people are ethically justified to hunt animals. Well, how would a person feel if he or she is hunted? If a human is hunted like an animal, would that affect his or her philosophy about hunting and killing? To answer these questions, look at the climax and resolution of the story.

According to Socrates, what is the definition of man?

While Socrates may or may not have, as Plato contended, defined man as a "featherless biped," Socrates definitely defined man as the species that creates ideas. Men thrive on ideas and live by their wits, not their brute strength. The great question for Socrates then became: what kind of ideas will men come up with? Will they be sensible ideas, based on reason, or will they be silly? Since man is primarily a creature of...

While Socrates may or may not have, as Plato contended, defined man as a "featherless biped," Socrates definitely defined man as the species that creates ideas. Men thrive on ideas and live by their wits, not their brute strength. The great question for Socrates then became: what kind of ideas will men come up with? Will they be sensible ideas, based on reason, or will they be silly? Since man is primarily a creature of deliberative thought, it followed that focusing on developing the best ideas—on the processes of thought, cognition and self awareness—would create the greatest wisdom and hence better men. Socrates put an emphasis not on technological innovation or sensory perception but developing cognitive ideas that bring us closer to justice, freedom, beauty, and truth.

In the Phaedo Socrates argued that the external senses do not bring us closer to truth. Instead we should be concerned not with the body but with the soul. In fact the human body (our status as "featherless bipeds") does not define us as men (sadly, Socrates is thinking in a gendered way) but, in fact, human appetites and desires for food, comfort, wealth, and physical things interfere with developing man's fullest humanity. 

While Socrates defined men as limited and therefore not capable of reaching absolute truth, he also believed they had immense capability for attaining an ever more refined idea of the just and the good. This awareness and definition of man as primarily a thinking being is the basis of Western philosophy.

Why can we call the narrator of "A Rose for Emily" an unreliable narrator?

The narrator of William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" is unnamed and seems to represent the whole town in which Miss Emily Grierson lived (we hear that she has died at the beginning of the story). The narrator could be considered unreliable because the narrator has seemingly had little to no actual interaction with Miss Emily. The information in the story is based on rumor, speculation, and observation. It does not appear that the narrator...

The narrator of William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" is unnamed and seems to represent the whole town in which Miss Emily Grierson lived (we hear that she has died at the beginning of the story). The narrator could be considered unreliable because the narrator has seemingly had little to no actual interaction with Miss Emily. The information in the story is based on rumor, speculation, and observation. It does not appear that the narrator has ever had a conversation with Miss Emily, and we know the narrator (and the town at large) certainly has no real insight into Miss Emily's psychology. She is a mystery to the to town. They are interested in her and consider her like a "monument" that is an unquestioned part of the world in which they live. We know that the townspeople know very little about Emily's personal life by the fact that they find a dead body in a bed in her home after she dies. The body appears to be that of a former beau, Homer, who disappeared years before. The presumption is that she must've drugged him with the rat poison she buys in the store and kept him there, sleeping next to him for many years, as we see from the long gray hair found on the pillow next to his body. Everyone is shocked, including the reader, as we really did not know Miss Emily well and could not have predicted this bizarre behavior. The narrator relays rumors about Miss Emily throughout the story in a disorganized, non-chronological way. Ultimately, the narrator has to be considered unreliable, because he or she does not know Miss Emily personally. Through the use of the narrator, though, Faulkner is able to provide the reader with a truly surprising ending. 

As a result of Ivan's story, how would you characterize the Inquisitor's view of human nature, and is he correct in his estimation? Why or why not?

In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich is a profoundly troubled young man. He is extraordinarily sensitive, someone who feels the weight of the world on his shoulders. He has an acute sense of the sufferings of the world, and the woes of humankind force him to question the religious beliefs of a society from which he has become utterly estranged. Try as he might, Ivan cannot reconcile the existence of so much suffering in the world with that of a benevolent, loving Creator.

It is not that Ivan rejects God; he simply has a profound contempt for organized religion. Indeed, this is the main thrust of his story "The Grand Inquisitor," in which Christ returns to earth in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition only to be sentenced to death. The parable told by Ivan is intended to highlight deficiencies in human nature, rather than serve as a withering critique of the Christian message. Even when the Son of God, the savior of mankind, returns to earth to walk among us, he is vilified and sentenced to death.

Yet, this is precisely what happened during Christ's original ministry on earth. The suggestion from Ivan here is that human nature has not really changed all that much in the past 2,000 years. Human nature seems to be irredeemably corrupt, fallen, and wholly incapable of positive development. At the same time, Ivan's story could also be seen as a critique of the saving power of Christ. Even those who call themselves Christians—and who display great outward piety in their lives—are unable to recognize their Lord and master when he is standing right there in front of them. Yet, they still cannot be saved from the myriad corruptions of their nature. Christianity, then, would appear incapable of reforming the unreformable. If the Son of God cannot achieve this, then what hope is there for humankind?

Ivan's estimation of human nature is correspondingly low. God, in the person of His only begotten son, has provided us with the means not just for our salvation, but also for the redemption of this world. Yet, we have chosen not to do so. Whether we agree with Ivan or not, there is no doubt that the question he addresses is still relevant to our times. One quick glance at the newspapers or the TV tells us that the world continues to be riven by conflict, hatred, and widespread death and destruction. The same horrors keep on befalling the human race with depressing regularity time after time. What does this say about human nature?

What of the Inquisitor himself? Is his estimation of human nature in any way more compelling? There is certainly an incredible degree of cynicism about the way he looks at his fellow men. He castigates Christ for resisting Satan's temptations in the desert; he really ought to have turned those rocks into loaves of bread. Men are material creatures; they will follow those who fill their bellies. The Inquisitor is a thoroughgoing materialist; human beings are primarily heaps of matter. A rich and fulfilling spiritual life is ultimately dependent on one's material well-being. Man may not live on bread alone, but securing his daily bread is the most important thing in life.

As well as being crudely cynical, The Inquisitor is also guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy. Despite his assumption of the guise of a religious zealot, The Inquisitor is in fact an atheist. He tells Christ in no uncertain terms that he is no longer needed. This is a particularly significant point in the story, as it highlights the fundamental contradiction at the heart of a completely humanistic understanding of the world. On one hand, The Inquisitor's cynicism regarding human nature leads him to believe that we are all beyond salvation. At the same time, however, his peremptory dismissal of Christ is strongly suggestive of the humanist notion that we can save ourselves, rise above our merely human nature, and create a better world.

In many respects The Inquisitor is himself a symbol of fallen human nature. In that sense, his cynicism represents a heightened form of self-awareness. He also provides us with an insight into our own individual selves. We look at him and see something of ourselves as we really are. Our evaluation of The Inquisitor's conception of human nature depends, to a large extent, on how we would have treated Jesus had we been there in Seville during the Spanish Inquisition. Would we have summarily dismissed him as The Inquisitor did? Alternatively, would we have regarded him as an impostor and called for him to be put to death as a heretic? Would we have acknowledged the Second Coming, accepting Christ as our Lord and savior? We need to try, if possible, to put ourselves in the shoes of those in the story.

Ultimately, the resolution of this notoriously thorny question is down to the individual. However, perhaps we can tentatively put forward a kind of middle position with respect to the matter. Human nature may appear to display all the signs of being immutable. Nevertheless, there are enough examples of extraordinary individuals throughout history who have broken the mould, as it were, to show us that a different world is possible. This world is no longer torn apart by bloodshed, hatred and seemingly interminable conflict.

In the final analysis, it all comes down to whether such people were able to transcend the limitations of human nature entirely through their own resources, or whether they required divine assistance in their endeavors. In other words, our answer to the question depends on whether we regard ourselves as purely human and purely material, with the ability to shape our own destinies or as spiritual creatures totally dependent upon divine grace.

What do they learn from their experience?

Throughout the novel, Jem and Scout learn a variety of important lessons from Atticus and their experiences growing up in the small town of Maycomb, Alabama. Both children learn the importance of protecting innocent beings, as when Atticus tells them that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird, and the definition of "real courage" from their experiences with Mrs. Dubose. The children also learn what mob mentality is after the Old Sarum bunch attempts...

Throughout the novel, Jem and Scout learn a variety of important lessons from Atticus and their experiences growing up in the small town of Maycomb, Alabama. Both children learn the importance of protecting innocent beings, as when Atticus tells them that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird, and the definition of "real courage" from their experiences with Mrs. Dubose. The children also learn what mob mentality is after the Old Sarum bunch attempts to lynch Tom Robinson in chapter 15. Toward the beginning of the story, Scout also learns the importance of controlling her temper and maintaining perspective from her experiences with Miss Caroline. However, the most significant lesson Jem and Scout learn throughout the novel concerns the prejudiced nature of their community. After witnessing racial injustice for the first time during the Tom Robinson trial, Jem and Scout both become aware of the overt prejudice throughout their community. Both siblings begin to recognize the racist nature of Maycomb and notice the hypocrisy throughout their community following the Tom Robinson trial. 

Atticus says he puts more emphasis on the rights of the individual and his worth then he does on the influence of the family. How do you react to...

One way to react to this statement is realizing where Atticus Finch is coming from when he says this. As an attorney and as a public servant that was once voted into the legislature, he took an oath to defend the rights of the people. Now, Atticus faces the challenge of defending Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman. As such, he would definitely need to put more emphasis on the right of the individual than on the opinions and ideals of his own family, and even those of the entire community.

This challenge is even greater due to the racial tension that exists during the trial. On top of the racial tension, Atticus must deal with yet another conflict: Tom Robinson's accusers, Bob and Mayella Ewell, are members of a highly dysfunctional clan that is notorious for the family's chaotic, disruptive, and illegal ways. In Maycomb, where African Americans are considered to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy, are the Ewells to be believed only because they are white?

As a man of higher education than most, Atticus is very aware of these social variables, which greatly affect public opinion and the overall state of mind of the community. His knowledge and experience in these matters are the factors that help him keep his personal views and the opinions of others separate from his immediate task at hand.

His task is to defend a man that is apparently trapped in a very messy situation. Atticus knows how this complex scenario may end. He knows that Tom Robinson is on the losing end even though he has been wrongfully accused. Hence, Atticus also knows that Tom Robinson needs him more than any other defendant ever will. Atticus is the voice of Tom Robinson in a community where Tom, and black people in general, have always been voiceless. The responsibility of such a task is formidable, and only a man as strong in character as Atticus could take on such a challenge. 

Keep in mind that Atticus doing everything to support his client does not mean that he is a rebel that intentionally wants to go against everybody.  Instead, it means that Atticus has the strength of moral character that many people lack. He is willing to put himself in an unpopular position for the sake of giving Tom Robinson the best defense that he can give him,as it is stated in our Constitution. Indeed, Atticus consistently has to endure name-calling, humiliating social situations with Bob Ewell, and even fearing for the safety of his own children. 

All of these things demonstrate that Atticus goes above and beyond his duties because he views Tom not as just a "client", but as a fellow human being that has fallen prey to very dangerous people. Worst of all, Atticus knows that whatever happens, Tom will lose. As such, Atticus is not only the voice of Tom Robinson, but also the little remaining safety and security that the poor man has left in a cruel society.

The placage system has been an important theme in many works by Armand Lanusse: "A Marriage of Conscience," "Kings," "The Little Convent Girl" and...

To discuss the placage system, I will choose Armand Lanusse's A Marriage of Conscience and his poem Epigram.

Background: Setting, Historical, and Dramatic Context

Both the story and the poem above highlight the plight of young minority women under the placage system. Originally, the placage system was practiced in New Orleans and parts of the Caribbean; it was what we would call a common-law marriage. As the mother explains to her daughter, a placage or "conscientious" marriage constitutes "a vow of marriage with no legal basis." Placage marriages were entered into between European men and quadroon women (historically women who were of one quarter African-American and three quarters European descent). Since these marriages were essentially marriages of convenience, these women were viewed as little more than mistresses.

During the colonial period, the shortage of European women in New Orleans led English men (tasked with the job of expanding colonial territories in America) to seek out unconventional sexual unions. At the time, voyages from England to America were often fraught with danger, and few women could make the trip unscathed by disease or the dangers of the sea. Thus, placage proved a convenient arrangement for wealthy European men who valued the light-skinned beauty of the young female quadroons.

As in Lanusse's story, the quadroon balls in 19th century New Orleans were central to the initial placage ritual. Young quadroon and octoroon women were showcased at these balls for the perusal of prospective male "protectors." Often, the mother was the negotiator in placage arrangements. She basically sold her daughter to the highest male bidder in exchange for money, property, and jewelry. Often, a placage arrangement would set the mother and daughter up for life, and so, there was great incentive for the mother to placate her daughter's suitors.

Themes in both the story and poem.

While the story addresses the theme of female exploitation, it also addresses the theme of how placage affects the relationship between the male protector and his (eventual) white wife and how the arrangement of such unions sours the relationship between the quadroon girl and her mother. We must remember at the time that inter-racial relationships were only marginally tolerated in New Orleans, while inter-racial marriages were banned altogether. The anti-miscegenation laws saw to that.

In the story, the young girl believes that Gustave will treat her honorably, but her mother rejects her daughter's naive view of the arrangement. To the mother, the placage arrangement is a necessary evil, but to her daughter, it is a matter of love and devotion. In Epigram, the mother vows to eschew her sins, but first, she asks the priest whether she is not wrong to show her daughter "how to get a man." Her words refer to the placage union she hopes to arrange for her daughter.

It is noteworthy that the priest does not answer the mother. This may be intentional on Lanusse's part, however. In colonial New Orleans, the Catholic Church frowned upon inter-racial marriages and unions. However, in both The Marriage of Conscience and Epigram, the priest's stance is more ambiguous. In the story, the priest officiates over the marriage of convenience between the young woman and Gustave. In the poem, the priest is silent when the mother asks her controversial question. Essentially, Lanusse is criticizing the priesthood for its hypocrisy involving placage unions. Often, avaricious priests prospered materially for their part in officiating placage marriage ceremonies.

While Epigram does not address the daughter's viewpoint in the matter, The Marriage of Conscience highlights the conflict that arises between a mother and daughter regarding placage. The story also addresses the public humiliation a placage mistress endures when her "protector" marries. Towards the end of the story, the young woman commits suicide when she catches a glimpse of Gustave and his lawfully-wedded white wife. As a "respectable" citizen, Gustave has to ignore his personal feelings about his mistress' death; his wife expects his indifference, and society demands it. It can be said that in both the story and the poem, Lanusse highlighted the plight of women of color to perfection.

Sources:

1) Fears and Fascinations: Representing Catholicism in the American South by Thomas Fredrick Haddox.

2) Revolution, Romanticism, and the Afro-Creole Protest Tradition in Louisiana by Caryn Cosse Bell.

In what way does Joseph Conrad criticize European civilizing missions?How does he address the encounters between African and Europeanpeoples?

Look at what Conrad has to say about the various European empires and their role in Africa. Toward the beginning of Heart of Darkness, Conrad discusses the Roman Empire in Britain and then makes some comparisons between how the Romans governed Britain and the rest of Europe, and how the British are doing it today. Pay attention to what Marlowe has to say about the conduct of each of the individual powers, and the nature...

Look at what Conrad has to say about the various European empires and their role in Africa. Toward the beginning of Heart of Darkness, Conrad discusses the Roman Empire in Britain and then makes some comparisons between how the Romans governed Britain and the rest of Europe, and how the British are doing it today. Pay attention to what Marlowe has to say about the conduct of each of the individual powers, and the nature of an empire based on greed versus one that claims to be doing good in the world.

There are also specific actions in the book which are useful to consider as regards the civilizing mission of the Europeans. Consider the battleship that Marlowe mentions at one point as he heads into the Congo. What is it doing? And based on what it's doing, what can be said about what the Europeans are doing there?

Consider the character of Kurtz. What were Kurtz's intentions in coming to the Congo, and what has been the end result in the story? What's the effect of the European commercial presence in the Congo?

As you consider the interactions between Africans and Europeans, there are a few ways to address this question. How are Africans present in the story? What kind of characters are they? And how are they treated or described by the various European characters, including Marlowe?

Is it possible to achieve total equality within a society? Why or why not?

No, it is not possible to achieve total equality in a society.

While the Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal," it does not mean that everyone is equal in intelligence, physical skills, etc. It means that they hold equal rights that are inherent in all people. This concept is one propounded during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, an age of great thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. These Enlightenment thinkers believed in the concept of natural rights, rights that allow people to freely make their own choices and have the opportunity to prosper.

This Enlightenment concept of natural rights--"all men are created equal"--is greatly different from the "equality" established by the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution and enforced by agents of the United States Handicapper General Diane Clampers. In order to make Harrison Bergeron "equal," the young man must wear handicaps that weigh him down and disguise his good looks, and shocks are sent to his brain.

People are made differently; it is impossible for them to be the same unless artificial controls are used, such as the noises sent through the brain and the heavy handicaps that are worn. And, when equality is enforced, the best that can be hoped for is equal mediocrity.
George Bergeron is highly intelligent, and so, he must wear forty-seven pounds of birdshot in his vest and headphones that emit sound to distract him in order to make him "equal."

"If you could just take a few [the bird shot] out when you came home from work," said Hazel. "I mean-you don't compete with anybody around here. You just sit around."

His having been made to be "equal" has obviously depressed George as he "just sits around." So, in a sense, his rights to be fulfilled and happy have been taken from him. His forced mediocrity has taken the spirit from George. His son Harrison actually rebels, but then is killed for his actions by the Handicapper Diane Glampers. 

Equality is impossible to establish without enforcement, but with such enforced equality, talents are hampered and intelligence not allowed to be exercised, and, therefore, people are dissastified, unhappy, held back and, therefore, unequal.

Did Elie Wiesel lose his humanity?

Throughout the novel, Elie struggles to retain his humanity in the face of nearly insurmountable hardship. His outlook on life, faith, and humanity completely changes as he describes the horrors of living in a concentration camp. For example, his relationship with his father evolves as the child becomes the parent—Elie is forced to care for his father, when normally parents are meant to care for their children. Elie resents this, saying, "If only I could...

Throughout the novel, Elie struggles to retain his humanity in the face of nearly insurmountable hardship. His outlook on life, faith, and humanity completely changes as he describes the horrors of living in a concentration camp. For example, his relationship with his father evolves as the child becomes the parent—Elie is forced to care for his father, when normally parents are meant to care for their children. Elie resents this, saying, "If only I could get rid of this dead weight." It is also incredible and horrifying to Elie that anyone could inflict the kind of pain on others that he experiences at the camp. He doesn't understand how anyone could treat other human beings like they are nothing, and he loses faith in the goodness of humanity.

In the story "If I Were a Man" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, how does her description of what constitutes a man's identity differ from that of a woman?

The time setting of Charlotte Perkins Gillman's story determines some of the changes in attitudes that Mollie, the protagonist, feels because in this setting most wives do not work. Consequently, she has had no experience of commuting to work or having her own money or being around men in a setting outside of social gatherings.

When Mollie enters the body of her husband, Gerald, suddenly the world seems to become the right size. Distance is covered with longer legs and feet that can control the ground on which they step. In fact, when she walks, there is a sense of comfort—as there also is when she puts her back against the seat on the commuter train. The discovery of so many pockets in the pants she wears delights her with the convenience of having everything at hand. With great joy

...she felt what she had never felt before in all her life—the possession of money...her own earned money—hers to give or to withhold, not to beg for, tease for, wheedle for—hers.

More and more she feels empowered. Friends are on the train, and suddenly she feels that she has truly entered the world of men because now she experiences how they think on such topics as business and politics and sports. She is even aware of what they have thought before in their lives. As the men talk among themselves, 

...there poured in on the submerged consciousness beneath a new, a startling knowledge—what men really think of women.

It seems that men have two departments of thought. One is that of affection and love—tender ideas, loving ideas. In another department are those stories from parties, "base traditions, coarse epithets, gross experiences," private ideas. These thoughts become dizzying and troubling to her. They are the most foreign of perspectives that she has experienced.

As she looks out the window of the train, a new world that seems larger to her opens. Then, Mr. Miles, a neighbor on the other side of her street, begins to complain of having to give up his seat to a woman. Another man complains that women cannot make up their minds anyway.

"The real danger," began the Rev. Alfred Smythe, the new Episcopal clergyman, a thin, nervous, tall man with a face several centuries behind the times, "is that they will overstep the limits of their God-appointed sphere."

Something inside her bristles. Gerald sits up straight and speaks up for womanhood.

"Seems to me we all talk like Noah," he suggested dryly, "or the ancient Hindu scriptures. Women have their limitations, but so do we, God knows. Haven't we known girls in school and college just as smart as we were?"

Gerald Mathewson defends women further, saying if women have brought evil into the world as Eves, the men have certainly helped to keep this evil going.

Finally, the train pulls into the city and Gerald goes to his job. But all day Gerald becomes slightly conscious of new and strange feelings, different views, and the "submerged Mollie learned and learned."

As a man, Mollie has certainly experienced more independence and more responsibilities, such as working and managing money, dealing with the public, engaging with people all day, and providing for the family in many ways.

What was Margaret Macomber's profession?

Margaret, or Margot, Macomber is a kept woman. She doesn't love her husband; indeed, she doesn't even respect him. But she enjoys the opulent lifestyle that comes with being married to a rich man. The Macombers have been married for eleven largely unhappy years. Five years before the story takes place, Margot had commanded up to $5,000 a time for endorsing beauty products. This would suggest that Margot had worked as a fashion model or...

Margaret, or Margot, Macomber is a kept woman. She doesn't love her husband; indeed, she doesn't even respect him. But she enjoys the opulent lifestyle that comes with being married to a rich man. The Macombers have been married for eleven largely unhappy years. Five years before the story takes place, Margot had commanded up to $5,000 a time for endorsing beauty products. This would suggest that Margot had worked as a fashion model or perhaps an actress—certainly some kind of profession in which she could trade on her beauty. Indeed, Margot's extraordinary beauty is the only reason why Francis married her in the first place. She knows her husband regards her as a "trophy wife," and that, combined with his perceived weakness and cowardice, is what makes her treat him with such contempt.

What is a summary of The Control of Nature?

The Control of Nature by John McPhee is a non-fiction collection of three essays dealing with humanity’s attempts to control natural processes. The idea for the collection began in 1980, when McPhee took his daughter on a canoe trip down the Atchafalaya River. His daughter was fascinated by the works of writer Walker Percy, who was born in Alabama but spent most of his life in Louisiana. Their river trip took them into Mississippi, where...

The Control of Nature by John McPhee is a non-fiction collection of three essays dealing with humanity’s attempts to control natural processes. The idea for the collection began in 1980, when McPhee took his daughter on a canoe trip down the Atchafalaya River. His daughter was fascinated by the works of writer Walker Percy, who was born in Alabama but spent most of his life in Louisiana. Their river trip took them into Mississippi, where McPhee met with a local who encouraged him to work on his first essay investigating the Army Corps of Engineers’ monitoring of river flow in southern Louisiana.

Not long after, McPhee was off to California for essay two, a look at the debris slides from San Gabriel mountain that threatened Los Angeles. His final essay deals with the threat of lava eruptions and flows in Hawaii and Iceland. McPhee’s work placed him in front of locals, non-locals, engineers, scientists, and governmental bureaucrats. The whole adventure was steeped in money, power, conflict, death, and destruction. McPhee was not shy about exposing humanity’s hubris when it came to harnessing the forces of nature, nor its resilience in the face of looming threats.

In The Crucible, how is Reverend Hale's character development significant to the play as a whole?

Reverend Hale is one of the few characters who transforms throughout the play.

He starts as a firm believer in witchcraft, and by the end of Act III he has completely recanted his position and even tries to save the holdouts from execution. He represents the ability to look past bandwagon beliefs and form personal conclusions based on knowledge and observation rather than blind bigotry.

In an appeal to the immovable Danforth, Hale pleads,

"Excellency,...

Reverend Hale is one of the few characters who transforms throughout the play.

He starts as a firm believer in witchcraft, and by the end of Act III he has completely recanted his position and even tries to save the holdouts from execution. He represents the ability to look past bandwagon beliefs and form personal conclusions based on knowledge and observation rather than blind bigotry.

In an appeal to the immovable Danforth, Hale pleads,

"Excellency, it is a natural lie to tell; I beg you, stop now before another is condemned! l may shut my conscience to it no more - private vengeance is working through this testimony! From the beginning this man has struck me true. By my oath to Heaven, I believe him now."

While Hale can be credited for no longer turning a blind eye, his earlier convictions proved deadly for many a character, which shows the dangers of accepting the world around you before making investigations.

This can be related back to the real world with Miller's motivation for writing The Crucible: McCarthyism. Most people, even people who were powerful and would have been able to deter Senator McCarthy's agenda, did not speak out against him until the evidence of his fraud became too large to ignore. For many innocent citizens, it was too late as the modern "witch hunts" destroyed many a family and career.

What is the poem "Ozymandias" talking about? How does it relate to Frankenstein?

The poem "Ozymandias" is about the broken statue of Ozymandias, who was once the mighty and feared ruler of an important kingdom. By the time of the poem, all that is left of Ozymandias is a ruined statue. His kingdom has disappeared entirely and has become an empty desert. On his statue, these words appear:

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! 

The words are ironic, meaning the opposite of what Ozymandias meant them...

The poem "Ozymandias" is about the broken statue of Ozymandias, who was once the mighty and feared ruler of an important kingdom. By the time of the poem, all that is left of Ozymandias is a ruined statue. His kingdom has disappeared entirely and has become an empty desert. On his statue, these words appear:

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! 

The words are ironic, meaning the opposite of what Ozymandias meant them to communicate. The mighty should despair not because Ozymandias and his kingdom are  powerful and terrifying, but because the great works of today's tyrants will likewise come to nothing. 

Frankenstein dreams of grandeur as he works in a frenzied way, day and night, to be the first to create life from inanimate body parts. He succeeds, but the life he creates is so monstrous to him he flees it in horror. He wants to destroy it. 

Both Ozymandias and Frankenstein end up "shattered." They both represent the pitfalls of excessive pride and ego. They also represent the problems that can arise from not excercising foresight. 

As noted in the other answer, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley were husband and wife. 

In Fahrenheit 451, what are some examples of allusions and authors?

In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury makes reference to a lot of other books and authors. Here are a few examples:

• There is a reference to the Oxford Martyrs, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, who were burned for heresy in 1555. In fact, Latimer's words are quoted by the woman who is burned in Part One.


• In Beatty's speech to Montag, in which he explains and justifies the fireman system, Bradbury refers to two other important works: Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe and Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman.


• Just before Montag kills Beatty, there is a reference to Shakespeare, specifically to his Julius Caesar:

"There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats, for I am arm'd so strong in honesty that they pass by me as an idle wind, which I respect not!"

• Shakespeare himself is mentioned by Montag when he calls Faber for the first time. Montag also mentions Plato, the philosopher, in this call.


• Matthew Arnold's poem, "Dover Beach," also features in the book. It is read out by Montag and makes one of Mildred's friends cry.

How would free healthcare in the United States change the expenses of people in the lower class, middle class, and upper class?

The first issue here is that "free" health care isn't actually free. Hospitals, doctors, and medications all cost money. The actual issue is how those costs are paid for and by whom. In some countries, patients pay health care providers directly. In other countries, people tend to buy insurance and insurance companies then pay all or part of medical costs. The standard model in most developed countries is some form of national healthcare, usually with a single payer model, in which the government collects taxes and uses tax money to pay the health care costs of all citizens and permanent residents.

The current system in the United States is actually a mixture of government (i.e. taxpayer) funded health care available to veterans, lower-income families, and the elderly, for-profit insurance, and direct payment to providers. 

What changes people will experience in health care-related costs if a single payer system was instated would depend on implementation details. For veterans, the elderly (Medicare eligible), and the poor (Medicaid eligible), a switch to a single payer system might not not change their costs or benefits.

For workers who already have insurance plans through work, out-of-pocket medical expenses might be lower. Currently, approximately 60 percent of bankruptcies in the US are related to medical debt; this number would decrease markedly under a single payer system. People in lower- and middle-income brackets who are not Medicaid-eligible would probably see the greatest benefits. People in the middle- and upper-income brackets would see a reduction in out-of-pocket medical expenses and insurance costs.

The question remains, though, of how such a system would be financed. It would require some form of increased taxation or perhaps mandatory insurance contributions on a sliding scale. While consolidation of Medicare, Medicaid, and VA benefits under a single payer system would result in some cost savings, some people would still need to pay additional taxes to fund a single payer system. If such a tax plan closed loopholes such as the difference between higher taxes on wages and lower ones on capital gains (which benefits the wealthy), then the wealthy would pay higher taxes. An across-the-board tax increase or fixed levy might increase tax rates for some, but this might be offset by lower medical costs. 

Realistically, the answer to this question depends entirely on implementation details; without those, one cannot know actual numbers.

What does the cat symbolize?

The cat symbolizes the fear of the unknown. In the final story, Yoyo finds kittens that have been separated from their mother. A stranger tells Yoyo to not take a kitten. However, after she hears shooting, the mother cat appears as Yoyo attempts to take one of her kittens. Although Yoyo eventually returns the kitten, she doesn’t know what happens after. The cat occasionally appears in her dreams, a mystery that she can’t solve.

There’s...

The cat symbolizes the fear of the unknown. In the final story, Yoyo finds kittens that have been separated from their mother. A stranger tells Yoyo to not take a kitten. However, after she hears shooting, the mother cat appears as Yoyo attempts to take one of her kittens. Although Yoyo eventually returns the kitten, she doesn’t know what happens after. The cat occasionally appears in her dreams, a mystery that she can’t solve.

There’s a sense of guilt that still plagues Yoyo, even as an adult. Maybe she should have heeded the stranger’s warning to not separate the kitten from her mother. Yoyo made a seemingly harmless mistake that could have been avoided if she didn’t give in to her own curiosity. Therefore, the cat acts as a confirmation of Yoyo’s fear and curiosity about the alternate possibilities that life offers.

How does an unhealthy lifestyle impact the circulatory system?

There are a number of ways in which a lifestyle could be said to be unhealthy. Probably some of the first ways that come to mind are poor diet and lack of exercise, but things like smoking and caffeine overuse can also have an impact on circulation. And of course there are other ways in which a lifestyle could be considered unhealthy that do not directly impact a person's circulatory system, such as making poor social or behavioral choices, driving recklessly, or shoplifting. It makes the most sense to contextualize the answer in terms of the choices that do directly impact circulation.

A poor diet that includes excessive sodium intake without a balanced intake of potassium, can lead to high blood pressure (hypertension). High sodium intake does not in and of itself present a problem, but our bodies need a certain level of potassium as well for electrolyte balance. A high sodium to potassium ratio can lead to high blood pressure and even cardiovascular disease over time, especially when combined with obesity and low levels of physical activity.

Smoking cigarettes puts toxins in the blood that increase blood pressure and heart rate, constrict arteries, and thicken the blood. This combination can lead to clot formation, and a clot that forms in a narrowed artery can cause cardiac arrest or a stroke, depending on the location of the clot.

Although coffee can cause elevated blood pressure in people who don't drink it all the time, there doesn't seem to be any research showing this is a health risk. Habitual coffee drinkers appear to acclimate to the caffeine intake in a way that prevents their blood pressure from being significantly affected, provided they don't drink a whole lot more coffee than usual. Coffee hasn't been associated with health problems, but it does affect the circulatory system, which is why I mentioned it. And too much caffeine can cause rapid heartbeat and other problems.

Find the total length of the graph of the astroid `x^(2/3) + y^(2/3) = 4`

We will use formula for arc length of curve `y=f(x)` for `a leq x leq b.`

`L=int_a^b sqrt(1+y'^2)dx`

Differentiating the given equation yields

`2/3x^(-1/3)+2/3y^(-1/3)y'=0`

From this we get

`y'=-y^(1/3)/x^(1/3)`

Looking at the image below, we can see that the astroid is made up of four identical arches. Therefore, if we calculate length of one such arc we will know the total length of the graph.

Let us therefore, calculate the arc in the first quadrant. Lower bound...

We will use formula for arc length of curve `y=f(x)` for `a leq x leq b.`

`L=int_a^b sqrt(1+y'^2)dx`

Differentiating the given equation yields

`2/3x^(-1/3)+2/3y^(-1/3)y'=0`

From this we get

`y'=-y^(1/3)/x^(1/3)`

Looking at the image below, we can see that the astroid is made up of four identical arches. Therefore, if we calculate length of one such arc we will know the total length of the graph.

Let us therefore, calculate the arc in the first quadrant. Lower bound of integration will obviously be 0, while the upper bound will be the point where the curve touches `x`-axis (where `y=0`).

`x^(2/3)=4`

`x=4^(3/2)`

`x=8`

Hence, the quarter of the total length is

`1/4L=int_0^8sqrt(1+(-y^(1/3)/x^(1/3))^2)dx=`

`int_0^8sqrt(1+y^(2/3)/x^(2/3))dx=`

`int_0^8sqrt((x^(2/3)+y^(2/3))/x^(2/3))dx=`

Notice that the numerator is equal to the left side of the given equation which is equal to 4.

`int_0^8 2/x^(1/3)dx=int_0^8sqrt(4/x^(2/3))dx=2int_0^8 x^(-1/3)dx=2cdot3/2x^(2/3)|_0^8=`

`3cdot(4-0)=12`  

Now we know that

`1/4L=12`

Multiplying the both sides by 4 gives us the final result

`L=48`  

` `

In the novel Never Let Me Go, why do the students and Hailsham's administrators attach such high value to creativity?

Yes, both the students and the administrators at Hailsham value creativity, but the two groups value creativity for completely different reasons.

Unlike the students themselves, the administrators know everything to do with Hailsham students and their existence, including the fact that they are all clones with a specific utilitarian purpose: the students are brought into the world only to be used for their healthy organs, and they will eventually die when they run out of...

Yes, both the students and the administrators at Hailsham value creativity, but the two groups value creativity for completely different reasons.

Unlike the students themselves, the administrators know everything to do with Hailsham students and their existence, including the fact that they are all clones with a specific utilitarian purpose: the students are brought into the world only to be used for their healthy organs, and they will eventually die when they run out of useful vital organs. The administrators seek to cultivate creativity in the students as a way to extend the experiment, as they believe that artistic ability is a measurable way to determine if the cloned students are fully human. All of the student artwork is an essential part of the body of cloning research that the administrators want to gather and analyze.

The students, on the other hand, value their own creativity for vastly different reasons. The students are unaware of the fact that they are clones and participants in an experiment. They see themselves as normal children who want positive attention, even love, from the adults around them. Creativity is one way to generate this attention, and the artists who exhibit the most interesting and promising artistic talents do indeed receive the most positive attention from the adults at Hailsham.

In conclusion, the students' simple desire to be loved and their childish determination to demonstrate creativity contrasts with the cold, hard rationale behind the administrators' scientific value of creativity.

What is the irony in "The Story of an Hour"?

Ironyis created when there is a discrepancy between what we expect to happen and what actually happens. So, one major irony of this story is created when Louise Mallard reacts with joy to news of her loving husband's death. At first, she bursts into tears "with sudden, wild abandonment" and a "storm of grief." It is, therefore, even more of a surprise when Louise goes alone to her room and says to herself, "free,...

Irony is created when there is a discrepancy between what we expect to happen and what actually happens. So, one major irony of this story is created when Louise Mallard reacts with joy to news of her loving husband's death. At first, she bursts into tears "with sudden, wild abandonment" and a "storm of grief." It is, therefore, even more of a surprise when Louise goes alone to her room and says to herself, "free, free, free!" So, she is happy about the loss of this husband who, apparently, "never looked save with love upon her"?! The simple answer is yes. She is not rejoicing in his death necessarily but in her own newfound freedom, but she is rejoicing, and this unexpected response to such seemingly tragic news is ironic.

Louise's sister, Josephine, kneels outside her door, concerned for Louise's health, as she fears that her sister is overwhelmed by grief. We, of course, know this to be untrue: if Louise is overwhelmed by anything, it is her happiness that "There would be no one to live for her during those coming years; she would live for herself." Because we, the readers, know more than Josephine, a character, dramatic irony is created.

Again, watching Louise descend the steps with "a feverish triumph in her eyes" as she walks "like a goddess of Victory" adds to the earlier irony of her initial reaction, because we would not expect a woman whose loving husband has just been killed to feel triumphant or victorious. It is also ironic that Brently Mallard walks through his front door as though nothing has happened because, all along, we expect him to be dead (since his friend verified the news by a "second telegram" before coming to break it to Louise). We, and they, expect him to be dead, not unlocking his front door.

Finally, the cause of Louise's death as proclaimed by the doctors, that she died of "joy that kills," is another example of dramatic irony. We know that her joy didn't kill her; instead, it was likely her disappointment that all the freedom she thought would be hers was suddenly snatched away when she realized her husband was still alive.