Assume that it is 5 years in the future. The Armstrong suits are settled. 1. What major business law issues do you believe Lance Armstrong faced?...

Armstrong's fraud against USPS might be seen as having caused USPS to violate major US marketing and advertising laws prohibiting deception, illegal activity in marketing and untested claims of health benefits.

Imagining that USPS loses its suit against Armstrong because Armstrong himself was not a signatory of the marketing/sponsorship agreement USPS had with Tailwind Sports, then Armstrong might be rightly sued for causing USPS to violate US marketing and advertising laws requiring truthful claims that are not deceptive: Armstrong, associated with the USPS brand, deceived USPS and the public by hiding sports doping. 

US marketing and advertising laws prohibit doing anything illegal in the course of marketing. It might be said that the fact that Armstrong broke doping laws (according to the Department of Justice) while acting as part of USPS brand advertising--which they associated with "Lance Armstrong: American hero"--provides significant grounds for action against Armstrong since he admittedly violated US drug and doping laws.

Armstrong may also be connected to violation of US marketing and advertising laws regulating advertised health benefits since association with Armstrong--cancer survivor and founder of Livestrong--may imply health benefits even without overtly claiming health benefits.

Anne says Margot has become quite sweet these days and isn't as catty. Why do you think this is so?

On Wednesday, January 12, 1944, Anne writes in her diary:

Margot's gotten much nicer. She seems a lot different than she used to be. She's not nearly as catty these days and is becoming a real friend. She no longer thinks of me as a little kid who doesn't count.

Although Anne grew up admiring her sister, that admiration turned into resentment and jealousy as the two aged. Margot seemed to be better loved by most adults due to her calm and non-reactive personality. Anne, in fact, used to sarcastically refer to her as "a paragon of virtue." When trouble was afoot, Anne was usually blamed for it first since no one might suspect that Margot would misbehave. 

Anne and Margot's renewed sense of friendship could come from necessity (as it was better for the sanity of everyone sharing this small space if the two would get along) or from Anne's budding love for Peter (which seemed to have a mellowing effect on the emotionally tempestuous girl). It could also be due to the fact that Anne seems to be maturing and gaining self-awareness, which is demonstrated in an entry shortly before this one in which Anne re-reads portions of her diary and scolds herself for her nasty words against her mother. We can see that Anne is growing up over the course of the diary, and as she transitions from being a moody little girl to a more thoughtful and sensible young woman, her relationships seem to transition as well. 

How did the Stevenses act towards the Worthens in Lyddie?How was Lyddie's relation with them different from her mother's?

Lyddie's mother does not like the Stevens family because they are Quakers, but they are good neighbors.

The Stevens family is neighborly to the Worthens, even though Lyddie’s mother wants to avoid the Stevenses because they are Quakers.  They let Lyddie breed her cow to their bull.  When Lyddie comes back to sell the calf, Mr. Stevens is upset that he did not realize that the children were there alone.  He would have helped them if he knew. 

Charlie, in fact, wanted Lyddie to ask for help, even if their mother would not approve.  She left the two of them there on their own. 

He glanced about to make sure his mother wasn't in hearing distance. "You mustn't be afraid to go down and ask the Quaker Stevens for help, Lyddie. They mean to be good neighbors to us, no matter what Mama says." (Ch. 1) 

Their mother was strictly religious and thought the Quakers were strange.  She did not approve of their religion, and therefore avoided them.  It was not uncommon for people to discriminate against Quakers because they acted, dressed, and worshiped differently.

Lyddie used the cow because she needed to, but she did not want to be beholden to anyone.  She was able to sell the calf back to Mr. Stevens, who agreed because he knew the children were desperate.  He even invited the children in for lunch. 

He invited them in to complete their business transaction and, before they were done, they found themselves eating a hearty noon dinner with the family. (Ch. 2) 

The incident with the Stevens farm shows how independent Lyddie is.  She wants to be able to do things on her own.  She is forward thinking, breeding the cow so there is a calf and milk and dairy products.  Her mother is not right in the head, and never thinks about any of it.

Quaker Stevens buys the farm, and his son Luke Stevens even asks Lyddie to marry him. She does not accept, again wanting to be independent.  She also barely knows him.

Who first introduced the idea of revolution to the animals in Animal Farm?

It is Old Major, the "prize Middle White boar," who first introduced the idea of revolution to the animals. In a secret meeting in the barn, Old Major summons the animals to hear him speak about a "strange dream" that he has recently had. When they arrive, however, Old Major tells them that he is approaching the end of his life and must impart some wisdom before he dies. In the rousing speech which follows, Old Major depicts humans as the source of all problems among animals and argues that man takes from the animals (their milk and eggs etc.,) without ever giving back:

"In return for your four confinements and all your labour in the fields, what have you ever had except your bare rations and a stall?"

Old Major finishes this speech by teaching the animals a song from his childhood. This song, Beasts of England, paint a rosy and idealised image of life without humans in which there are no "whips" and the animals are enriched by freedom and as much food as they can eat.

It is these ideas which ignite the animals with the first thoughts of revolution and which make them realise that Mr Jones is the real enemy who must be overcome.

What does Orwell's Animal Farm teach readers about good leadership?

The novel does show us how to be a strong leader, although not necessarily a good one.  Napoleon led through deception and intimidation.  Snowball was ineffective as a leader.  He developed committees that accomplished very little and did hardly more than serve as a divisive force.  

On the whole, these projects were a failure. The attempt to tame the wild creatures, for instance, broke down almost immediately. They continued to behave very much as before, and when treated with generosity, simply took advantage of it. (Ch. 3) 

The one thing that Snowball did accomplish was to get the animals educated—sort of.  Most of the animals accomplished as much as they could, given their natural abilities.  The pigs learned to read, and a few of the other animals learned their names or a few letters of the alphabet. 

Napoleon, on the other hand, was very shrewd.  He manipulated the animals through misdirection and propaganda.  Later, he used force. He secretly trained a force of guard dogs and had them run Snowball off.  He pretended Snowball’s windmill was his idea. Then he worked the animals constantly on the windmill, not letting them get any rest as promised. 

The animals were supposed to be living a life of luxury.  Instead they were on half-rations, while Napoleon and the other pigs lived high off the hog.  They ate the apples and drank the milk, lived in the house, and even drank alcohol.  The pigs went back on every promise they made to all of the other animals.

The pigs pretended that everything they did was a sacrifice for the other animals.  Squealer, Napoleon's mouthpiece, had an answer for everything.

"I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. ..." (Ch. 5)

The pigs' lies were continual.  The other animals were helpless to stop the pigs once they were in charge.  They were not good leaders.  They did not protect the animals in their charge.  They exploited them, just like the people did.

What good things did Maximilian Robespierre do?

Maximilian Robespierre is best-known for instigating the Terror, a short but dark period of the French Revolution under which thousands of people were killed by an increasingly overzealous revolutionary government. But that is not all he did in his life.

The reason he had enough power to do the Terror in the first place was that he played a vital role in the French Revolution, overthrowing the absolute monarchy and (eventually, after a long and tumultuous period including none other than Napoleon) establishing democracy. He led a group called the Jacobins who were vital to the success of the revolution. Without their help, the Revolution might have failed and France might have stayed under monarchy for generations to come.

He was a classic example of a Well-Intentioned Extremist; while his goals were good---he wanted freedom and democracy for all the people of France---he was willing to use extreme methods including torture and murder in order to get there. As he grew more extreme, he also became less popular, and was eventually overthrown in much the same way he had originally overthrown the king.

How does the length of a pendulum affect the frequency and wave speed?

To solve, let's consider the period of the pendulum. The formula of period is:

`T= 2pisqrt(L/g)`

where T is the period, L is the length of pendulum and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

Take note that the frequency is the reciprocal of period.

`f=1/T`

Plugging in the formula of T, it becomes:

`f=1/(2pi) sqrt(g/L)`

Based on this, the frequency is inversely proportional to the length.

`f prop 1/L`

This means that as the length increases, the frequency decreases.

For the speed of the wave, let's consider the relationship between linear and angular velocity.

`v = r* omega`

Take note that in a pendulum, the angular velocity is equal to angular frequency, which is `2pif` . And the radius refers to the length of the pendulum.

`v= r*omega`

`v=L*2pif`

Plugging in the formula of frequency, it becomes:

`v = L*2pi * 1/(2pi)sqrt(g/L)`

And it simplifies to:

`v = Lsqrt(g/L)`

`v=sqrt(Lg)`

Based on this, the speed of the wave is directly proportional to the length of the pendulum.

`v prop L`

So, as the length of the pendulum increases, the speed of the wave increases too.

Therefore, as the length of the pendulum increases, the frequency decreases while the speed of the wave increases.

What does William Shakespeare mean when he says "to be or not to be" in Hamlet?

Hamlet is not pondering suicide he is pondering action. Having thought through his plan to catch the conscience of the king, Hamlet is faced with the consequences of his action to come. He can idly suffer at the hands of fortune or he take charge of his own destiny. Hamlet sets up quite a quandary: quietly suffering in one's own cowardice or actively battling one's ocean of troubles. As Harold Jenkins in the Arden Hamlet points out, taking arms against a sea of troubles does not end one's troubles rather they ultimately end you.

Hamlet in this speech is speaking in the third person and generalizing the dilemma for all persons similarly situated. But what he is saying in light of his own situation is that if he goes through with his plan to catch the king, he places his own life on the line. This point is specifically expressed in his 4.4 soliloquy as he observes another prince do precisely that. It's no coincidence that as Hamlet departs for England he is in the same boat, so to speak, as Prince Fortinbras because Claudius intends to take Hamlet's life.

Hamlet isn't worrying about taking his own life, he is worrying about someone or something else taking his life in the active engagement of life's troubles. Turning resolution into action has consequences that Hamlet is not sure he is prepared to meet.

Hamlet's thoughts on suicide occur at two places in the play. The first is in his first soliloquy in Act 1 Scene 2 where he recognizes that "self-slaughter" is against God's commandment (i.e. Thou shall not kill). Here, Hamlet is being over dramatic: youthful hyperbole. His morose expressions establish his youth and an unrealistic view of death. His mood is sullen having suffered the tongue lashing from Claudius and Gertrude. Denied his studies, the crown, the alliance of his mother and the guidance of his father, Hamlet feels like he has no purpose. He says it is only the stain of sin that keeps him from killing himself. This all changes when his father's spirit challenges him.

Second at the end of the play as Hamlet lays dying, Horatio expresses the desire to follow Hamlet in death. Hamlet rejects Horatio's attempt. Like the Ghost's injunction to Hamlet, Horatio has a purpose. He wants Horatio to carry on Hamlet's memory and champion his good name. Remember me.

Much ink is spilled over the idea that Hamlet's soliloquy in 3.1 expresses suicidal ideation. This interpretation is misguided. Toward the end of his speech Hamlet does mention that life can be surrendered by a mere bodkin. Here, Hamlet is expressing the frailty of the human body and the ease with which life can be taken. The difficulty in taking a life does not lie in the body's resistance to harm; rather, it is the resistance of the will. This furthers the thought on the hesitation between resolution and action which is the theme of the soliloquy as a whole. Hamlet is not worrying about killing himself he is concerned about being killed at the hands of another. More generally (and Hamlet is frequently occupied in searching for universal principles) Hamlet realizes that taking arms against a sea of troubles, i.e., meeting the day-to-day travails of life's burdens, may ultimately shortens ones life.

What does Calpurnia reply when Lula tells her only black folks can come to their church in To Kill a Mockingbird?

When Lula confronts Calpurnia, insisting that she has no business bringing white children into the African Missionary Episcopalian Church, Calpurnia replies, "It's the same God, ain't it?"

One Sunday Calpurnia takes Scout and Jem with her to church because Atticus is in Montgomery as the state legislature has convened. The last time that he was gone, the children got into trouble at their church when they had no parental supervision; so, Calpurnia assures that the children are bathed and dressed well and takes them along to the African M.E. Church:

When they arrive at the church, Lula, a rather formidable woman, accosts Calpurnia, "What you up to, Miss Cal?" Calpurnia counters Lula's question with one of her own in tones that Scout says she has never heard her use, "What you want?"

"I wants to know why you bringin' white chillun to nigger church."

"They's my comp'ny," Calpurnia replies, in a dialect Scout has also not heard before. It is also then that Calpurnia tells Lula that the same God in worshiped in either church. But, Jem is uncomfortable and wants to go home, and Scout agrees. At that moment, the congregation advances and Zeebo, the garbage collector who is also Calpurnia's son, welcomes Jem and Scout, and he tells them to pay no attention to Lula, who is "contentious."

The children's experience at the church is a valuable one as they witness the poor conditions of the church and its congregation. Yet, song rises from the pews and the people contribute what they can to Helen Robinson. After the service, the children are also welcomed by Reverend Sykes, beside whom they will later sit in the courtroom at the trial of Tom Robinson.

What moral principles does To Kill a Mockingbird suggest are desirable? Does anything in the novel undermine these moral principles?

There are many moral principles at play in To Kill a Mockingbird, though they all seem to touch on the central moral question that the novel posits: are all men created equal?

In Maycomb County, Alabama, circa 1935, the answer, as expressed in the attitudes and customs of the inhabitants, is clearly "no." Women are allowed less power than men, blacks are given less respect and much less legal protection than whites, certain religious groups are looked upon less favorably than others, the poor are treated with less regard than those above them, and certain professions are looked upon with less approval than others. 

The novel's primary moral center, Atticus Finch, says as much during his peroration before the jury in his effort to free Tom Robinson:

"We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe--some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they're born with it, some men make more money than others..."

Where Atticus hopes the natural differences between men will be suspended is in America's courts, where he continues his appeal to the jury with these sentiments:

“But there is one way in this country which all men are created equal—there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man equal of an Einstein, and an ignorant man equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court..."

Alas, despite Atticus' best efforts and evidence that seems to exonerate Tom Robinson, the jury finds Tom guilty of the charge of rape, a capital offense in Alabama in the 1930s. As a black man, Tom does not enjoy equality under America's courts and is sentenced to death for a crime that appears was not even committed.

Thus, the moral principle of "All men are created equal" is undercut by the reality of life in Depression-era Maycomb County, Alabama.

What are 4-5 reasons Claudius's actions were not justified in Hamlet?

Claudius's actions are not justified for many reasons.  First, he killed his brother to take his crown. One might consider there to be some justifiable, or at least understandable, reasons for killing another person — self-defense, a crime of passion, perhaps — but killing someone for greed in such a cold-blooded way just to gain their power is not one of these potentially justifiable reasons. Thus, the murder of old King Hamlet is unjustifiable.

Second, it's not like Claudius killed a bad king or even a stranger to take his position. He killed his own brother.  As he says, it is the "primal eldest curse" (III.3.38). In referring to the biblical story of Cain killing his brother, Abel, Claudius acknowledges there is no good way to justify his murder of his brother.

Third, after Claudius killed his own brother to gain his power, he married his brother's widow. This is not justifiable because when old King Hamlet married Gertrude, she became Claudius's sister by law. Therefore, when Claudius marries Gertrude, he is (legally) marrying his own sister. Incest is not justifiable.

While it is never justifiable to marry your brother's widow, it is particularly not justifiable to marry one's brother's widow less than two months after he's died. Claudius married Gertrude so quickly that Hamlet mockingly jokes that "The funeral baked meats / Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables" (I.2.187-188). As if it isn't bad enough to kill his brother in order to take his position, Claudius then marries his brother's wife (his own legal sister) so soon after the funeral that it hardly seems as though he (or she) has mourned the loss of King Hamlet at all. His actions seem unjustifiable in every way.

How do I prove that Friar Lawrence's potion is not the best soution for Juliet's dilemma?

Perhaps the best way to make this argument is by looking at the events that actually transpired after Juliet drank the potion. The potion itself actually worked--it did what the Friar promised it would. But all depended on getting news of the plot to Romeo, who was banished to Mantua. Friar John, as it turns out, was unable to get to Mantua due to plague, but Balthasar, Romeo's servant somehow got through to tell Romeo that Juliet was dead. Perhaps Friar Laurence should have anticipated that Romeo might receive reports of Juliet's "death" instead of learning the finer points of the plan.

In other words, the Friar's rather ill-conceived plot was very dangerous, and that many things had to go right for it to work. It is also important to remember, however, that the Friar really had little choice--Juliet has already warned him that she will kill herself rather than marry Paris. "I long to die," she says, "if what thou speak'st speak not of remedy." Perhaps, then, the safest (but certainly still dangerous) choice might have been to smuggle Juliet out of Verona to Romeo. But that, possibly, would not have achieved the Friar's motive of reconciling the two families--indeed, it may have made things worse.  

How would one summarize chapters 11 and 12 of Gary D. Schmidt's novel Trouble?

To write a summary, we focus on the most important details.

In Chapter 11 of Gary D. Schmidt's Trouble, the most important details concern the fact that Henry faced conflict from his family for his plans to travel to Maine to climb Katahdin yet left without his family's permission regardless. In the minds of his family members, Henry going off by himself to climb a dangerous mountain he would have been climbing with Franklin is just inviting more Trouble into the Smiths' home. In addition, his mother can't bear the thought of the family being separated after Franklin's death:

It's not the time for us to be splitting apart. (p. 146)

Yet, in Henry's mind, the Smith family has already split apart. Therefore, at the start of July, Henry sneaks out of the house with Black Dog on a leash and meets up with Sanborn to hitchhike to Maine. It's not until dark that Henry and Sanborn are picked up by a truck, and when they get in, they discover they have been picked up by Chay Chouan, who is responsible for Franklin's death and has just left his family out of rebellion against his father.

One important detail in Chapter 12 is that tensions between Chay and Henry begin to resolve somewhat during their conversation in the truck. Chay speaks of how sorry he is for being responsible for Franklin's death. Tensions begin to resolve the most when Chay expresses how much he is aware of Henry's mother's suffering because he witnessed his own mother suffer in the exact same way. Chay continues to relay his experience in the refugee camp in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge came to collect boys to fight. The soldiers chose Chay's ten-year-old brother because he was large. Chay further relays that his mother begged the soldiers not to take him, and when she refused to cease begging, "a soldier shot [Chay's] sister." It is because Chay has heard his own mother grieve for her lost children that he can tell Henry, "That is how I know what your mother sounds like" (p. 159). Though Henry begins to feel compassion for Chay, tensions rise again toward the end of the chapter when Henry reflects to himself in the chowder house that he is sharing a table and dining with his brother's murderer.

Why was the prince called a happy prince?

During his life on earth, the prince was called the Happy Prince because he was always happy.

Accordingly, the prince never knew unhappiness when he was alive, as he lived in splendor and ease. He lived in a palace where sorrow was never allowed to enter; a high wall separated his palace grounds from the outside world. Because his existence was so sheltered, the prince never knew of the misfortunes and miseries his subjects experienced in their own lives. The prince tells the swallow that his own courtiers used to call him the Happy Prince, only because he was always found to be cheerful and untroubled.

The prince remembers living a life that consisted of largely unvarying daily pleasures; during the day, he cavorted with his companions in the garden, and in the evenings, he led dances in the Great Hall of the palace. It was only when he died that he became sad, and this was because they placed his statue so high up on the city grounds that he could see the surrounding miseries and degradation in the city.

Is Brutus a better leader than Cassius? Why?

The answer to this question is somewhat subjective (both characters are good leaders in their way), but, for me, a definitive answer can be found in Antony's final speech in Act 5, Scene 5, during which he comments on the defeated Brutus:

This was the noblest Roman of them all.

All the conspirators save only he

Did that they did in envy of great Caesar; 

He only in a general honest thought

And common good to all made one of them.

His life was gentle; and the elements

So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up

And say to all the world 'This was a man!' (68-75)

In this speech, Antony reflects on the fact that, out of all the conspirators that assassinated Caesar, only Brutus wanted to protect Rome and preserve the republic. All the other conspirators, including Cassius, killed Caesar because they envied his power. Brutus, however, was motivated by the altruistic desire to protect Roman citizens from a dictatorship. In light of Brutus' marked nobility and selflessness, it could be said that he was a better leader than Cassius.

Now, it is possible to argue against this standpoint. For example, while Brutus is the more noble of the two, Cassius is a more practical leader. Though Brutus somewhat naively assumes that Antony will not turn against the conspirators, Cassius suggests that they murder Antony along with Caesar in order to prevent an uprising. Following Brutus' advice, the conspirators do not kill Antony, and Antony inspires a rising against the conspirators that leads to their deaths. As such, Cassius shows himself to be more practical, and this quality could lead some to assume that he is the better leader. 

However, at the end of the day, I generally consider Brutus to be the better leader, as I believe his courage and selflessness are superior to Cassius' practicality. The conspirators need the honorable Brutus to make their schemes plausible, and it is ultimately the nobility of Brutus that lends the play its tragic poetry. As such, I believe it's obvious that Brutus is the better leader. 

In The Story of My Life, how was the summer of 1887 special for Helen? How did Helen learn the joy of nature?

The summer of 1887 was important because Anne Sullivan came and taught Helen Keller language.

Before Anne Sullivan came, Helen Keller could barely communicate.  She was blind and deaf from a young age, so she never learned to read, write, or properly talk.  She did not have the words for anything.  It was a lonely existence.

The most important day I remember in all my life is the one on which my teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, came to me. I am filled with wonder when I consider the immeasurable contrasts between the two lives which it connects. It was the third of March, 1887, three months before I was seven years old. (Ch. 4)

Anne Sullivan taught Helen how to spell out words using sign language.  Since Helen could not see, she had to spell words in her hand.  Although Helen couldn’t talk, she was very bright.  By the end of the first day she had learned many words, after Anne taught her “water” by showing her water.  Helen was a very happy little girl.

Even though Helen was blind and deaf, she could enjoy nature.  She enjoyed the smell of flowers, the feel of grass, and the warmth of sunshine.  After Anne came, she could also learn the names for things in nature.  This made it even more enjoyable.  Anne enjoyed learning.

Long before I learned to do a sum in arithmetic or describe the shape of the earth, Miss Sullivan had taught me to find beauty in the fragrant woods, in every blade of grass …. She linked my earliest thoughts with nature, and made me feel that "birds and flowers and I were happy peers." (Ch. 5)

Anne loved climbing trees.  One day she was in one when a high wind came.  She was terrified until Anne saved her.  The storm frightened her away from climbing trees for a while, but she loved nature so much she was soon in a tree again.

In the first two paragraphs of "Shooting an Elephant," what can you infer about the narrator based on his commentary?

From the first two paragraphs of "Shooting an Elephant," it is clear that Orwell hates his job as a colonial police officer because of the way locals treat him. Orwell appears to resent that the locals use "petty" and small-scale forms of harassment against him, like tripping him up during a football field, rather than openly attacking the imperialist system, as he comments, "No one had the guts to raise a riot."

It is also clear Orwell has a strong sense of social justice. This is made clear by his reaction to the treatment of some Burmese prisoners who are locked in cages and beaten by their British captors. While these observations fill him with a sense of shame, he cannot escape his resentment of the locals who treat him so badly:

All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.

That Orwell recognizes these feelings as a "normal by-product" of working in such an environment suggests he is aware of the moral implications of his role in Burma and that he carried it out reluctantly.

Is it true that a solution is often clear and transparent?

This depends on the solute and solvent that is used. A solution is a liquid mixture in which the solute is uniformly distributed within the solvent. A solvent does the dissolving. An example is water, which is referred to as the universal solvent. A solute is what gets dissolved. An example of a solution is sugar water. The sugar gets dissolved, yet the solution is still a liquid, even when a solid was added.  Solutions are homogeneous in nature, meaning you cannot distinguish the solute and the solvent and they cannot be separated by physical means. In solutions that involve metal compounds, the solution will be transparent, but will not be clear. The metals between titanium and copper on the periodic table have very brightly colored compounds. For example, a copper solution will turn bright blue. To sum this up, a solution will be transparent, meaning you can see through it, but it is not always going to be colorless. 

In Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, what ideas do you form about Anne's relationship with the other inmates of the Secret Annex?

When you have a lot of people locked in close quarters for months at a time, unable to leave, tensions are going to run high.  Anne had a somewhat strained relationship with her mother, and a better relationship with her father.  However, she struggled with the other family and Mr. Dusell. 

At first, Anne thought that Mr. Dussel was “a very nice man.”  However, she soon entered into conflict with him because they had to share her small room.  She called him “an old-fashioned disciplinarian and preacher of unbearably long sermons on manners.” Dussel was not used to children, and Anne was not one to back down easily.  She was frustrated with Dussel’s lack of understanding of the rules of the Annex and his continually harping on her about her behavior. 

Anne felt that all of the adults were ganging up on her. 

Mr. Dussel [is] such a tattletale and [singles out] Mother to be the recipient of his reports. If Mr. Dussel's just read me the riot act, Mother lectures me all over again, this time throwing the whole book at me. And if I'm really lucky, Mrs. van D. calls me to account five minutes later and lays down the law as well! (December 2, 1942) 

Anne was under increased scrutiny because there were so many adults watching her, and she felt that no one understood her.  Her relationship with her mother was strained, because she felt that her mother was too critical of her.  She felt that her mother treated her “like a baby.” 

Anne’s relationship with Peter was mixed. At first, it seemed that the two of them would never get along.  She described him at first as “a shy, awkward boy whose company won't amount to much.”  She also called him “hypersensitive and lazy.” 

I don't think Peter's gotten any nicer. He's an obnoxious boy who lies around on his bed all day, only rousing himself to do a little carpentry work before returning to his nap. What a dope! (August 21, 1942) 

Anne says she will never learn to love Peter “like a brother,” but she comes first to tolerate him and then to like his company.  She starts to describe him as “amusing” and once he overcomes his shyness she is able to have frank conversations with him that she can’t have with other adults.  It helps that Peter has his own room.  In time, Anne comes to depend on Peter.

Determine, without graphing, whether the function f(x)=4x^2-8x+3 has a maximum value or a minimum value and then find the value.

We are asked to determine whether the function`f(x)=4x^2-8x+3` has a maximum or a minimum, and then find the value.

The graph of the function is a parabola; since the leading coefficient is positive the parabola opens up and therefore there is a minimum at the vertex.

The vertex has x-coefficient found by`x=(-b)/(2a)`: here a=4 and b=-8 so the x-coordinate is `x=8/(8)=1`. The y-coordinate is`f(1)=-1`.

The minimum value occurs at (1,-1).

(1) Alternatively we can rewrite in vertex form:

`f(x)=4(x^2-2x)+3=4(x^2-2x+1)+3-4=4(x-1)^2-1` where the vertex is at (1,-1); the graph opens up since the leading coefficient is positive so there is a minimum at the vertex.

(2) Using calculus:

`f(x)=4x^2-8x+3` so  `f'(x)=8x-8`. The derivative is zero when`x=1`.

For x<1 the derivative is negative so the function decreases and the derivative is positive for x>1 so the function increases on this interval.

Decreasing then increasing indicates that the critical point at x=1 is a minimum for the function.`f(1)=-1` so there is a minimum at (1,-1). This is the only critical point so it is a global minimum (the function is continuous on the real numbers.)

How does Squeaky's revelation about the talents of the other individuals in the story help her to mold her opinion and form a mutual respect for...

Squeaky bases her opinions of people on what they can accomplish, and after the race she realizes her brother does have some skill at running.

Squeaky has a high opinion of herself, but she also asks a lot of herself and expects as much of others. Squeaky hates false modesty, and believes that people should be proud of accomplishments. She values working hard.

Raymond has special needs, and this means that although he is older Squeaky usually takes care of him, rather than the other way around. She stands up for Raymond when people make fun of him, too. At the same time, Squeaky values her individuality.  She takes care of her brother, but she takes pride in her running. 

There is no track meet that I don’t win the first-place medal. I used to win the twenty-yard dash when I was a little kid in kindergarten. Nowadays, it’s the fifty-yard dash. And tomorrow I’m subject to run the quarter-meter relay all by myself and come in first, second, and third.

During the race on May Day, Squeaky comes to a new appreciation of Gretchen, a neighborhood girl who also likes to run. When Gretchen comes in second and puts in a formidable showing, Squeaky acknowledges and admires this. She is also very impressed with Raymond. He paced her for the entire race, racing along with her in a race of his own. 

… Raymond jumps down from the fence and runs over with his teeth showing and his arms down to the side, which no one before him has quite mastered as a running style. And by the time he comes over I’m jumping up and down so glad to see him—my brother Raymond, a great runner in the family tradition.

Squeaky respects accomplishment.  After Raymond’s run, she sees him in a new light. Like her newfound respect for Gretchen, Squeaky comes to realize that Raymond has potential. She sees a common ground. The two of them can run together and train together, and in this way they can be real siblings.

In Lord of the Flies, what are some quotes that exemplify fear of starvation?

The boys are not starving, but they are eating an incomplete diet that often makes them sick, and they are always desperate for meat.

Although the island has a lot of fruit trees, the boys want a pig.  The “seductive, maddening” promise of meat is ever-present.  They assign a group of boys as hunters, led by Jack. 

The kids spend a lot of time eating, actually.  They mostly eat fruit from the trees.  Ralph complains that the kids are not doing what they were supposed to do, but instead spend their days fooling around and eating. 

“We want meat—”

“And we don’t get it.”

Now the antagonism was audible.

“But I shall! Next time! I’ve got to get a barb on this spear! We wounded a pig and the spear fell out. If we could only make barbs—” (Ch. 3) 

Because the boys eat so much fruit, they often have diarrhea.  This is especially a problem for the youngest boys, called littluns, because they do not have the best sanitary habits.  The older boys mostly ignore them and leave them to get sustenance on their own. 

The boys do eventually get the pig.  There is a schism that results in Jack and the hunters going off on their own, no longer submitting to Ralph’s leadership.  Jack has the meat, and invites the others to have some in order to show it off.  Ralph doesn’t want to go, but the meat is tempting. 

Ralph’s dribbled. He meant to refuse meat, but his past diet of fruit and nuts, with an odd crab or fish, gave him too little resistance. He accepted a piece of half-raw meat and gnawed it like a wolf. (Ch. 4) 

When Ralph is finally rescued, he is very hungry.  The boys have been subsisting on fruit for too long.  They may not be starving, but they are not healthy either.

What measures does Henry says the colonists have already tried in their dealings with England?

Patrick Henry is specific about what the colonies have tried to do to negotiate with Britain.  He points out that the negotiations have dragged on for ten years with no discernible improvement.  He goes on to say that the colonies "have petitioned; [we have] remonstrated; [we have] supplicated; [we have] prostrated ourselves before the throne."  In other words, the colonies have tried to submit signed petitions that demonstrate the will of the people to the ministers of Parliament, they have made forceful protests, begged humbly, and more or less made every gesture of submission to try to effect change in their relationship--all to no avail.  He also implies that the colonies have not shown that they are unwilling to be satisfied; it is Britain who has been behaving unreasonably despite the honest and peaceful efforts of the colonies to work out their differences. 

What is F. Scott Fitzgerald's view of the American Dream?

This question is essential to F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, as one of the novel's overarching preoccupations is a critique of the American Dream. Consider, for instance, Gatsby and Daisy's storyline: Gatsby begins as a poor young man in love with a young woman (Daisy) who chooses to marry a man (Tom) with vast riches at his disposal. Gatsby believes that, if he just works hard enough, he can earn enough money to become an important person worthy of Daisy's love. In the end, after wasting his life acquiring a vast, but ultimately meaningless, store of wealth and possessions, Gatsby fails to win Daisy's love and dies alone.

It's possible to read this storyline as a critique of the American Dream. In general, the classic American Dream asserts that anyone can acquire all that his or her heart desires, as long as he or she works hard enough. Gatsby's story suggests that this ideal is not realistic. Though Gatsby works hard and claws his way out of poverty, he is not happy in the end, and he fails to gain that which he most desires (Daisy's affection). As such, Fitzgerald is clearly questioning a fundamental American value that informs much of the country's cultural trends, and his ultimate evaluation seems to end in the pessimistic rejection of the American Dream. 

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

The setting is a Caribbean island called Ship-Trap Island, owned by General Zaroff, sometime in the twenties. 

The story was written in 1924, and there are references to World War I.  Therefore, the story is probably set sometime in the early twenties.  The story’s action mostly takes place on the mysterious Ship-Trap Island, which has a bad reputation among sailors.  It turns out the reputation is deserved, since there is a man who lives on the island who kidnaps and kills sailors regularly. 

Sanger Rainsford, the protagonist, is discussing hunting and life in general with Whitney on a yacht traveling through the Caribbean.  He is told about the island they are passing, which superstitious sailors avoid.  It is a very dark night. 

"The old charts call it `Ship-Trap Island,"' Whitney replied." A suggestive name, isn't it? Sailors have a curious dread of the place. I don't know why. Some superstition--"

Rainsford accidentally falls off the ship.  He hears a shot on the island.  Having no choice, Rainsford swims to the island.  It has dense brush, craggy rocks, and harsh waves.

Dense jungle came down to the very edge of the cliffs. What perils that tangle of trees and underbrush might hold for him did not concern Rainsford just then. All he knew was that he was safe from his enemy, the sea, and that utter weariness was on him.

On the island there is something you would really not expect to see.  Zaroff has built himself a huge chateau.  He likes to have a facsimile of civilization, because he considers himself civilized.  His other improvement to the island is a group of lights that indicate there is a channel where there isn’t one, thus earning the island its name by trapping ships.  Zaroff can then use the sailors in his hunting, because he hunts human beings.

2-methylstyrene in dilute H2SO4, how do I know which double bond to open?

There is only one double bond in styrene that is reactive. The double bonds in the benzene ring are not reactive as they are not really double bonds but part of an aromatic system and as such the electrons are delocalized around the ring.

The addition of dilute H2SO4 to styrene follows Markownikoff's rule which states that: In an addition reaction of a protic acid HX ) to an alkene or alkyne, the hydrogen atom of HX becomes bonded to the carbon atom that had the greatest number of hydrogen atoms in the starting alkene or alkyne. The formula of styrene is C6H5CH=CH2. So the hydrogen will add to the CH2 group at the end giving a carbocation intermediate C6H5CH(+)CH3. The anion portion of H2SO4 will then be added to the carbocation center and eventually be hydrolysed to an OH group. The resultiing compound is thus the alcohol C6H5CH(OH)CH3.

Why does the postmaster not agree to take Ratan with him?

In the story, the postmaster does not take Ratan with him when he returns to Calcutta. Ratan, who has become attached to him, is devastated by his seemingly callous rejection.

There may be a number of plausible reasons why the postmaster does not take Ratan with him. First, by all indications, the postmaster is unmarried. If he returns to Calcutta with a young girl in tow, he will likely become the subject of gossip. This brings us to another reason the postmaster does not let Ratan accompany him home: the considerations of class and status are of primary importance in a country like India, despite new laws forbidding caste discrimination.

Since the higher castes value strict compliance to the status quo, protecting one's reputation is key to preserving one's status in Indian society. If the postmaster returns to Calcutta with a young girl from an impoverished background, he will not only be the subject of gossip, but he will also find his position in society threatened. Most importantly, if he has any desire to marry at all, the postmaster cannot risk returning to his city with Ratan.

In the story, when Ratan asks if the postmaster will take her with him when he leaves, the postmaster merely laughs. He neglects to explain to her why her idea is absurd; to him, the reasons should have been clear. Although we can surmise that Ratan understands, we also know that her affection for the postmaster is genuine. To Ratan, the postmaster has become a beloved father-figure. She isn't interested in monetary or temporal considerations (this is apparent in her rejection of the postmaster's monetary gift before his departure); however, in her loyal affection, she fails to recognize her employer's true character. Thus, her grief is agonizing, in light of his rejection.

What is a debt-for-nature swap?

A debt for nature swap is a deal that is meant to preserve the environment in developing countries. At the same time, it is supposed to help the developing country by reducing the debt that it owes to richer countries.

Much of the world’s unspoiled natural area is located in developing countries.  These are places like the Amazon rainforest in Brazil.  One reason why these areas are still unspoiled is because their countries have not yet developed and done things like cutting down forests as the US and European countries did long ago.  The problem is that many of these areas are now under threat.  The people of the developing countries are starting to want to use the land for intensive economic purposes.  For example, people in Indonesia might cut down rain forest in order to plant palm trees for oil that can be sold.  The developing countries see those natural areas as untapped resources that could help them to improve their economies.

Meanwhile, many people in the rich world feel that it is important to protect areas that are still unspoiled.  They want to do this for the sake of biodiversity, in order to help prevent global warming, and for other reasons.  However, they realize that the developing countries could be hurt economically if they fail to develop those natural areas. For this reason, debt for nature swaps were invented.  In such swaps, a developed country promises to forgive some of a developing country’s debts if the developing country will protect a given natural area.  Because practically all developing countries are in debt to developed countries, this can really help them.

A debt for nature swap, then, is a deal that forgives a poor country’s debt in exchange for that country’s commitment to protect a given area of its environment.  This deal helps to preserve the environment without harming the developing country economically.

What is the fastest way to determine which element you are looking at while only using neutrons and nothing else?

It is not possible to positively identify an element based only on the number of neutrons.  Several different elements might even have the same number of neutrons.  For example, boron and carbon have 6 neutrons each.  Fluorine and neon each have 10 neutrons, so knowing neutron counts won't help a person positively identify the element.  

Additionally, different isotopes of the same element will have a different number of neutrons.  The element will have the same number of protons though.  

The only way to positively identify an element based on the number of subatomic particles is to know the number of protons present in the atom. The number of protons stays constant.  While looking at a periodic table, the atomic number provides a person with the number of protons.  The mass number tells a person how many protons and neutrons are present.  For example, the element fluorine has a mass number of 19 and an atomic number of 9.  Find the difference between the two numbers, and that is the number of neutrons.  19 - 9 = 10 neutrons.

Explain why there were no major witchcraft scares in the Chesapeake colonies and no uprising like Bacon's Rebellion in New England. Consider the...

When we attempt to answer questions like this, we are forced to speculate.  We cannot know for certain why these things happened in some places and not in others.  We can only make educated guesses.  We can speculate that witchcraft scares did not happen in the Chesapeake because there was less emphasis on religion there.  We can speculate that rebellions like Bacon’s Rebellion did not happen in New England because that region was more egalitarian.

We can say that witchcraft scares happened in New England because it was a tight-knit community dominated by the Puritans.  Because religion mattered so much, people suspected that people who were different in some way must be evil.  Therefore, they accused them of being witches.  In the Chesapeake, religion was much weaker and the communities were not as tightly knit.  Therefore, they would not have cared as much if people were different and might not have thought people who were different were in some way evil.

We can say that Bacon’s Rebellion happened because of class differences.  We can say that it was a rebellion of the poorer, backwoods people against the richer people living on the coast.  These class differences did not exist as much in New England.  New Englanders were much more similar to one another than those in the Chesapeake.  Therefore, there would not have been class resentments in New England to nearly the same degree as in the Chesapeake.

Thus, we can speculate that these different events happened in different regions because of the regions’ different religious and social makeups.

What is not typical of a tragic hero?

If you are referring to a particular tragic hero, please edit the question to reflect that. But if you are asking a general question about characteristics in opposition to a classical tragic hero, then, I can answer that.

In order to understand what is atypical for a tragic hero, we must first understand what is typical for one. The word ‘hero’ is from the Greek ‘heros,’ which translates ‘warrior, protector, defender,’ and the classical definition of a tragic hero is Aristotelian in origin. Aristotle’s tragic hero must have five characteristics: he must be of noble birth; he must have a character flaw, which usually presents as excessive pride; he must experience a reversal of fortune, almost always from good to bad; he must come to an understanding that his reversal of fortune is a result of his own choices or actions; and the consequences of his actions and his ultimate fate must be more than he deserves. The consequences of the hero’s actions should bring the audience to a point where they realize the hero is just a man who made a terrible mistake and, because his fate is always worse than he deserves, fear for and pity him.

Understanding these characteristics allows us to draw an opposing picture to see what characteristics are not typical of a tragic hero. First, it is atypical for a tragic hero to be of common birth. It is also atypical for a tragic hero to be humble, to not suffer from a serious character flaw that leads to his downfall. Having a tragic hero experience a reversal of fortune that moves from bad to good or good to better is atypical. If a tragic hero never comes to an understanding of his own culpability in the consequences that befall him and as a result does not suffer greatly, that is atypical. It would be very difficult for an audience to feel any fear or pity for such a tragic hero. In fact, he would not be a tragic hero at all.

How could the Mexican-American War be considered a cause of the Civil War?

The issue of slavery was certainly contentious between the North and South before the Mexican-American War, but it had not reached a boiling point. For the most part, the free states and slave states were established and there seemed to be calm between the sections. With the victory over Mexico, the United States had a large tract of land to be settled. With this settlement came the issue of slavery and whether these new territories would institute a slave system. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted the United States the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and California. Since the United States desired a continuous nation that expanded from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the future of these territories needed to be determined. This would cause a great deal of stress between the northern and southern states.

The Missouri Compromise (1820) placed an arbitrary line on the map at 36 degrees, 30 minutes latitude as the boundary for slavery. Areas to the north of the line would be free territories while areas to the south would be granted slavery. This line seemed ineffective in the debate about new lands and territories. There were two competing arguments about slavery in these territories moving forward. John Calhoun, a Congressman from South Carolina, was the leader of the Southern cause. He believed that since slaves were property, owners should be able to take them wherever they pleased, including the new territories in the West. The South also feared that adding free states would jeopardize slavery as an institution as they would be further outnumbered in Congress.

The northern states opposed slavery in new territories on moral grounds and felt slavery would discourage poor laborers from moving west. Congress attempted to resolve these difference with the Compromise of 1850. Certain parts of the compromise caused tensions to escalate. First, California was to be a free state, which angered the supporters of slavery. The southern states were also disgusted that slavery was abolished in the District of Columbia. The territories of Utah and New Mexico would be allowed to vote on whether they wanted slavery or not. This angered the abolitionists in the North. The North was also upset about the Fugitive Slave Law that forced them to return escaped slaves to their owners. The Compromise of 1850 did very little to calm sectional differences and may have actually made matters worse.

What are examples of simile, metaphor, and personification in "All Summer in a Day"?

Ray Bradbury's short story "All Summer in a Day" has many different types of figures of speech. Similes compare two unlike things using the words "like" or "as." Metaphors compare two unlike things using words like "is" or "was." Finally, personification occurs when an animal or inanimate object is given human traits or qualities. These figures of speech not only help to communicate what the author wants to portray in the story, but also help readers connect with something they may already understand, which then creates more meaning for them in the story. For example, the following is a passage that demonstrates the use of simile and metaphor:

All day yesterday they had read in class about the sun. About how like a lemon it was, and how hot. 

And they had written small stories or essays or poems about it:

I think the sun is a flower,

That blooms for just one hour.

The first figure of speech is a simile because it compares the sun to a lemon using the word "like." Then, a metaphor is used when the sun is compared to a flower using the word "is." 

The next passage has examples of two similes:

But Margot remembered.

"It’s like a penny," she said once, eyes closed.

"No it’s not!" the children cried.

"It’s like a fire," she said, "in the stove.”

Both figures of speech in this passage are similes because the sun is compared to a penny and then to fire using the word "like." The next example demonstrates how personification is used in the story:

They stood looking at the door and saw it tremble from her beating and throwing herself against it.

Inanimate objects do not have the ability to tremble like people do; therefore, this is an example of personification. The door "trembles" because it receives the impact of Margot's protest and anxiety about being trapped. It also seems as though Bradbury uses personification when Margot is locked in the closet to describe how her emotions powerfully transfer through the door as she pounds on it. 

How accurately does the story portray the events?

It depends what you mean by "events."  If you are referring to events as they take place in Peyton Farquhar's head, then yes.  If you mean events as they take place in reality, then no.  In the moments before Farquhar is hanged for attempting to destroy the Owl Creek Bridge, he senses that time begins to slow down.  As a result, the moment between when he begins to fall from the bridge and when the noose snaps his neck is extended in his mind, so much so that he imagines an elaborate escape from the Union army, traveling through the forest for many miles, and, finally, a near-reunion with his loving wife.  However, time doesn't actually slow down; Farquhar only imagines it does.  He doesn't actually escape; he is hanged in real time.

What is the mood of the poem "Mother to Son" by Langston Hughes?

The mood of "Mother to Son" is one of optimism in the face of hardship and sadness. 

The poem starts off, it seems, on a note of resignation:

Well, son, I'll tell you:

Life for me ain't been no crystal stair.

A "crystal stair" indicates luxury and delicacy. Hughes contrasts this symbol of privilege with images of roughness:

It's had tacks in it,

And splinters,

And boards torn up,

And places with no carpet on the floor --

"Tacks" and "splinters" indicate pain and hazardous territory. Torn boards symbolize destruction, possibly even the loss of a foundation. Finally, "no carpet on the floor" is a loss of comfort and warmth. The anaphora, or the repetition of "and" at the beginning of several lines, emphasizes the continuity of these deplorable conditions. The lack of change is broken only by a single word, "bare," which creates a stark and lonely image.

The pessimistic tone is discontinued, which is indicated by the use of "but" as a transition:

But all the time

I'se been a-climbin' on,

And reachin' landin's,

And turnin' corners,

And sometimes goin' in the dark

Where there ain't been no light.

Anaphora is used again, but this time to show the narrator's continual motion. Notice, too, that she uses the present tense: "a-climbin'," "reachin'," "turnin'," "goin'." This pattern, too, is broken by a line that evokes an image of a space: "Where there ain't been no light."

Her focus shifts from her narration of experience back to her son:

So boy, don't you turn back.

Don't you set down on the steps

'Cause you finds it's kinder hard.

Don't you fall now --

Anaphora is used once again, though less consistently, with the imperative "don't." Finally, the poem ends with motion:

For I'se still goin', honey,

I'se still climbin',

And life for me ain't been no crystal stair.

"Goin'" and "climbin'" are contrasted with her warnings to her son not to "set down" (a resignation of action) and "[falling]" (a failure to remain steady).

Why are safari members permitted to kill the dinosaur marked with red paint?

The Time Safari, Inc. folks are doing their best to avoid doing anything that will change future events. They built a path that everyone must stay on, so that nothing is disturbed in the old landscape. They previously sent someone back in time to chart opportunities, to watch when animals will be killed by natural forces. Then they mark these animals with red paint so that everyone knows which beasts can be safely hunted and killed. In this case, the Tyrannosaurus rex was going to be killed by a falling tree, anyway. This made it a desired target, and one that should not impact anything in the future. And sure enough, after this particular hunt is over, the tree still falls. But the dinosaur is already dead by then. And someone must go back and retrieve the bullets from the dead body. They can’t be left behind. Leave no trace.

When heavy rain falls, where is flash flooding most likely to occur?

Flash flooding is most common in low lying regions like valleys, river beds, and geographic depressions. The main cause of flash flooding is when there is nowhere for water to go. This is caused when the ground has little to no absorption capability. Where I live, flash flooding is most often caused when there is an extended period of rain to saturate the soil, preventing quick absorption into the soil, or after a long period of drought when the ground acts as a fired clay and causes water to runoff. In other areas, rain falling on stone can cause flooding, and in rivers surrounded by highlands such as in the mountains, even a small rain can raise water levels significantly, resulting in a flash flood.

How does Morrie rationalize his thought that aging is growth and not decay?

In the book, Morrie tells Mitch that aging isn't just about decay but about growth as well. He rationalizes his position from a philosophical standpoint: accepting this dual view of aging enables one to live a richer and more satisfying life.

Morrie believes that how he chooses to live determines how he will eventually die. He tells Mitch that young people are not without their own share of challenges in life. It's all a matter of perspective:

All these kids who came to me with their struggles, their strife, their feelings of inadequacy, their sense that life was miserable, so bad they wanted to kill themselves ... And, in addition to all the miseries, the young are not wise. They have very little understanding about life.

Both the old and the young have to overcome their challenges in order to fully appreciate all that life has to offer them. When Mitch argues that no one ever wishes they could be old, Morrie maintains that people who lament old age never learned to discover the true meaning of life. Because of their preoccupation with outward appearances, they lead unsatisfying lives. They envy the vitality of the young and neglect to detach themselves from that envy.

Morrie asserts that there are advantages for those who learn to accept the dawning of old age. They become open to new experiences and so, are able to attain more knowledge and lead more satisfying lives than those who envelop themselves in doubt and anger. Also, Morrie tells Mitch that age is a matter of perspective and that accepting the inevitability of aging is part of acknowledging the decay process of life. Morrie maintains that this mature outlook is the growth that most people never attain because they are too busy lamenting the loss of their youth.

“You have to find what’s good and true and beautiful in your life as it is now. Looking back makes you competitive. And, age is not a competitive issue.”

What is the resolution in A Separate Peace by John Knowles?

The resolution of a story is the final outcome after a conflict. There are two main conflicts facing the protagonist, Gene Forrester: coming to terms about himself regarding his friendship with Phineas and going into the war after graduation. Each student of the graduating class of 1942 knows that he will either be drafted or enlist at the end of the school year and wind up fighting overseas somewhere. But for Gene, he must face a different enemy before going to war; he must face the fact that he broke Finny's leg during a moment of jealous rage, which ruins his best friend's sports and war careers. Therefore, the resolution must tell the reader how Gene comes to terms with himself and Phineas; and, it must tell where everyone ends up after graduation.

Gene first tries to apologize and admit responsibility to Phineas for breaking his leg before the fall semester starts, but Finny doesn't believe Gene did it on purpose. There is no closure in the matter until after Phineas breaks his leg a second time at the end of Chapter 11. In fact, the boys discuss how Gene broke Finny's leg in Chapter 12. Phineas asks Gene the following:

"It was just some kind of blind impulse you had in the tree there, you didn't know what you were doing. Was that it?" (191).

Gene agrees that this is exactly what happened that day that he jounced the limb. He wasn't thinking about hurting Phineas, but rage took over and the next thing he knew his best friend was on the ground with a broken leg. Phineas shows that he accepts the reality of the situation and also forgives Gene. This is the closure that both friends need, and it comes just in time because Phineas dies the next day after complications during surgery. 

The resolution with the war is discussed for different characters at different times in the book. For example, Leper reveals his failed attempt at enlisting in the army in Chapter 10 to Gene. Leper's resolution revolves around the fact that he suffers a mental breakdown at bootcamp, goes AWOL, and ends up with a dishonorable discharge. Brinker's last words about the war is that he thinks he will join the Coast Guard; and Gene winds up touring the country while being assigned to different departments. Gene never actually makes it to combat before the war ends because his troop was transferred so many times that they couldn't be assigned to anything specific. Gene does mention that his own resolution came during the last year of high school rather than in the war, though. Gene's resolution about the war is as follows:

"I never killed anybody and I never developed an intense level of hatred for the enemy. Because my war ended before I ever put on a uniform; I was on active duty all my time at school; I killed my enemy there" (204).

How does Kit respond to jumping in the water in The Witch of Blackbird Pond by Elizabeth George Speare?

Kit is surprised that people didn’t think she would be able to swim and annoyed at Nat for jumping in after her. 

When Prudence Cruff drops her doll in the water, Kit thinks nothing of jumping in after it.  She knows that the doll is valuable to the child, and she is not aware of how cold the water will be or how people will react.  She feels terribly foolish. 

The others stared at her in suspicion. As though she had sprouted a tail and fins right before their eyes. What was the matter with these people? Not another word was uttered as the men pulled harder on their oars. A solid cloud of disapproval settled over the dripping girl, more chilling than the April breeze. (Ch. 1) 

Embarrassed that Nat jumped in after her, Kit tells him that her grandfather taught her to swim at an early age.  He is baffled, because he had no idea that she could swim.  He is also irritated because he got the only clothes he has wet. 

Kit is annoyed and surprised when Nat tells her that Goodwife Cruff has been telling everyone she is a witch because “no respectable woman could keep afloat in the water like that.”  Kit had no idea that the Puritans usually do not swim in Connecticut’s frigid water, and women never do.  In Barbados, a tropical island, Kit swam all of the time. 

"How dare she!" Kit flared, indignant as much at his tone as at the dread word he uttered so carelessly. "Don't you know about the water trial?" Nat's eyes deliberately taunted her, "'Tis a sure test. I've seen it myself. A true witch will always float. The innocent ones just sink like a stone." (Ch. 1) 

This is Kit’s first introduction to the ways of the Puritans.  She soon learns that restrictions against women swimming are the least of her concerns.  When she lives with her aunt and uncle, there are many more rules and prejudices to keep track of.

Why does Odysseus keep taunting Polyphemus?

The simple answer is that Odysseus is a prideful guy, so when he out smarts the simple-minded cyclops, he thinks a few insults and taunts are icing on the cake.

The hard answer is as a plot device and a character exposition. Homer needed to establish a character flaw for his hero, as was the tradition in his age; all tragic heroes like Odysseus have a fatal flaw. By showing a sign of weakness in his character, Homer helps the every man associate with Odysseus and his brave crew.

This flaw generates plot as well; after getting blinded, the cyclops was mad, but only after getting taunted by "Noman" did he lash out. The worst was when Odysseus told the cyclops his true identity, knowing full well the cyclops was the son of Poseidon. The cyclops used this to curse Odysseus, preventing his return home, and ultimately causing the lengthy epic as we know it today.

What's the theme of "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henri?

"The Gift of the Magi" is a Christmas story evidently intended to be published in the Christmas issue of a New York newspaper. As such, the story has a Christmas theme related to the spirit of giving. The theme hearkens back to one of the stories in the New Testament which is to be found in the King James Version of the Bible in Mark 12:41-44.

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

The story of "The Widow's Two Mites" is also told in Luke 21:1-4.

In other words, it is the spirit behind the gift and not the gift itself that is important. Della and Jim Young illustrate this moral when they express their love for each other by giving everything they have at Christmas time. Della sacrifices her long, beautiful hair, and Jim sells his treasured pocket-watch in order to get enough money to buy each other Christmas presents. It is ironic that Jim no longer has a watch for the platinum fob Della gives him and Della no longer has the long hair to be held in place by the ornate tortoise-shell combs he buys for her. But what is important is that they love each other, and their gifts really only serve as symbols and proofs of their love, which is far more precious than any material objects.

What does Piggy like about himself in the novel Lord of the Flies?

Piggy is the novel's most intelligent character who is continually ridiculed by the other boys because of his weight, asthma, and whiny attitude. Although Piggy struggles to become friends with the boys, he considers himself to be Ralph's biggest supporter. Throughout the novel, Ralph does not consider Piggy a "friend," but he does defend Piggy when others attempt to bully him. As the novel progresses, Ralph loses respect from the majority of the boys, but Piggy remains loyal. In Chapter 8, Ralph and Piggy are discussing how their makeshift society has broken down, and Ralph asks Piggy what makes things break apart. Golding writes, "When he understood how far Ralph had gone toward accepting him he flushed pinkly with pride" (140). Piggy likes the fact that Ralph has begun to rely upon him and views him favorably. Piggy is proud that he was the first boy to follow Ralph and remains loyal to the chief. Piggy also believes that he has good ideas. Piggy recognizes the fact that he is intelligent. When the other boys agree with his ideas, he feels a sense of pride. In Chapter 8, Piggy mentions that they should move the signal fire from the mountain to the platform. When everyone agrees, Piggy feels satisfied and proud of his contribution.

Why were the battles fought in the Pacific theater of WWII more difficult to fight than those in Europe?

The battles in the Pacific theater of World War II were more difficult to fight than those in Europe because they were fought on islands.  This made it very difficult for any attacking forces.  In Europe, battles were fought on a large land mass, allowing attackers to maneuver and avoid the sorts of battles that the Allies faced in the Pacific.

In the Pacific, the Allies had to fight their way through a large number of small islands.  They fought on tiny islands like Peleliu, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.  On those islands, it was impossible to maneuver around Japanese forces.  They could dig into prepared defensive positions and the Allies had to come right at them. The Americans had to fight the Japanese cave-by-cave through some areas of these islands. This was terribly difficult.

By contrast, the war in Europe was more of a war of maneuver. The invading Allies typically had more choices of where to attack.  They did not have to mount head-on attacks against well-prepared defensive positions. Because of this, the battles in the Pacific were much more difficult than those in Europe.

How can I predict the upcoming weather for 1 week starting at June 3rd? Is there any way I can do this?

The instructions for this project give you a huge hint: air pressure. Since you already have 12 days of weather maps, you should be able to identify the following: 

Isobars depict air pressure (atmospheric pressure) on the maps. From this, you should be able to determine high and low pressure systems and cold and warm fronts. You should also be able to infer cloud cover (clear, partly cloudy, overcast) and wind speed and direction (barb points). Finally, you should be able to see air temperature, dew point, and barometric pressure. I'll explain how you can do this (and create your weather predictions) in two steps.

STEP 1:

Firstly, you need to make sure you have air pressure information, which will allow you to make a future weather prediction. Your professor referred you to worksheet 2, so take a look there. Isobars are lines on the map(s) that connect areas of equal pressure. The other information (cloud cover, windspeed/direction, air temperature, dew point, and barometric pressure) can either be inferred as your professor suggests or, if it exists on the maps, directly applied.

If you want to infer the above information using air pressure, keep this in mind:

High air pressure: less clouds, low precipitation, fair weather
Low air pressure: more clouds, high precipitation, rainy/stormy/snowy weather

If you have direct information - great! You can apply that in the next step.

STEP 2:

You will need to put your air pressure (and other) information together to tell a "story" about what might happen in a given area. Firstly, take a look at the isobars - wind direction is closely related to high and low pressure gradients. Wind will typically follow isobars from areas of high pressure to low pressure (that's one way to infer direction!), but can also flow from low to high pressure areas (that's why direction information is helpful). If you have direction information, use it to tell the story. If you don't make an argument for why the wind may move one direction or another. Hint: think about topography and bodies of water.

Wind direction can also tell you quite a bit about how clouds (and precipitation) are moving. If the wind is flowing from west to east, will it be bringing precipitation from a coast? On the other hand, will westerly winds be moving precipitation away from the area? Can you infer whether or not there may be rain/snow in you area? Next, look at wind temperatures. Is the wind moving from warmer to colder areas? From colder to warmer areas? If the area is getting colder and wetter, will it be cold enough to snow?

Your professor isn't looking for a spot-on 100% accurate prediction - that's tough even for the experts. What she/he is looking for is your line of reasoning. Why do you think the weather will be dry and cold, warm and moist, windy and rainy, etc...? She/he gives you a huge hint in suggesting that this information can all be inferred from isobars, so be sure to refer to your older assignments and/or textbook to make sure you have a firm grasp on that subject.

What is a quotation from Macbeth which describes the witches' relationship to each other?

At the beginning of Act 1, scene 3, the scene in which the Weird Sisters confront Macbeth and Banquo with their respective prophecies as the two nobles return from the battlefield, the witches first meet up with one another and discuss what they've been doing since they last met (in Act 1, scene 1). The first witch asks, "Where has thou been, sister?" to which the second witch replies, "Killing swine" (1.1.1, 1.1.2). The third witch then asks the first witch, "Sister, where thou?" (1.3.3) These lines would indicate that the three witches are, in fact, sisters. Further, they seem to have a rather supportive relationship; when the first witch says that she's going to sail to Aleppo and seek revenge on the husband of a woman who wouldn't share her food, the second witch says, "I'll give thee a wind," to which the first witch replies, "Th' art kind" (1.3.12, 1.3.13). So, the three witches are sisters who have much in common and help one another with their vindictive pursuits.

How does Mary Shelley use the epistolary opening effectively in Frankenstein?

The use of the epistolary opening of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley adds a third narrator, Walton, to her narrative. This third narrator is effective because he lends a certain objectivity that an omniscient narrator, such as Shelley, could not. In addition, Walton lends another perspective to the same story that will develop. Thus, Walton's letters help to lend credibility to the tales of both Victor and the creature.

Walton's letters, in which he expresses his dream of "satiat[ing] [an] ardent curiosity with...a part of the world never before visited," also serve to lend more credibility to Victor Frankenstein's tale because Victor does not seem as strange when there are others such as Walton who also seek to conquer the unknown.

In addition, by using Walton as a narrator, Shelley creates another voice which acts as an "echo" of the other narratives in the novel. These echoing voices are suggestive of ghost stories as attention is focused upon the storyteller rather than simply upon the plot. As is known, Shelley wrote Frankenstein as a ghost story in response to a request by her and her husband's (Percy Bysshe Shelley) host, Lord Byron, who suggested that they each write a horror story to entertain one another while they were staying together in Switzerland.

Based on the experience of Japanese immigrants described in The Buddha in the Attic by Julie Otsuka, what do you think the American Dream...

Julie Ostuka's Buddha in the Attic is a heart-wrenching novel-- part memoir, part historical fiction-- that describes the kind of experiences faced by Japanese immigrants in America during the first half of the 20th century. Many who came to the United States had hopes of a better life, and had even been promised such. Picture brides, women who came to the United States for marriage, had been promised lives of comfort, respectable husbands, and beautiful homes. These women left their homes and families in Japan, where they most often worked as farmers, to find themselves isolated and farming yet again. 

While the book focuses on a narrative of Japanese women and their struggles in the United States, there is insight into the dynamic of families and children, as well. Many people who came to the United States had children who rejected their heritage in favor of American culture. Assimilation is a source of shame for many immigrants, especially in the second generation. The Japanese people who came to the United States suffered doubly-- first the struggle of leaving behind their "old life," and then the arrival to the United States, where they are marked as the enemy! With the beginnings of World War II, the Japanese people were forced to give up the homes, businesses, and lives they had fought to build, and were relocated to internment camps. 

For Japanese immigrants in the first part of the 20th century, the American Dream was all but attainable. These people were promised, implicitly and explicitly, a better life. The United States were touted, world 'round, as a better place where people could have opportunity and freedom. Unfortunately, this was not true for everyone. Chasing the American Dream presented obstacles for many Japanese immigrants, and every success required sacrifice.  I think that the idea of the American Dream is an intensely personal one. Life in the United States must have held different dreams and promises for everyone who traveled there. I imagine that some descendants of these Japanese immigrants have only achieved their American Dream very recently. 

Using quotes from the play, explain Stella and Blanche's personalities.

Blanche and Stella are sisters, but their personalities are very different. Blanche is a romantic, and speaks in lyrical language that often uses figurative language or references poets or writers. She's extremely self-conscious about her appearance, especially about how she has aged. Both of these qualities--her romanticism and her fixation on being young and beautiful--relate to one of Blanche's most intense qualities: she is very nostalgic. These qualities are captured in the passage below: 

"Not far from Belle Reve, before we had lost Belle Reve, was a camp where they trained young soldiers. On Saturday nights they would go in town to get drunk... and on their way back they would stagger onto my lawn and call-- 'Blanche! Blanche!'-- The deaf old lady remaining suspected nothing. But sometimes I slipped outside to answer their calls... Later the paddy-wagon would gather them up like daisies... the long way home." 

Stella, by contrast, is less nostalgic or romantic, and more modern and sensual. She has made her home in the wild and modern city of New Orleans, and is in a passionate and sometimes violent relationship with her husband, Stanley. She explains to her sister: 

"But there are things that happen between a man and a woman in the dark-- that sort of make everything else seem-- unimportant." 

Her sister is repulsed by this idea of love. She says: 

"What you are talking about it brutal desire-- just-- Desire! -- the name of that rattle-tap street-car that bangs through the Quarter, up one old narrow street and down another." 

In To Kill a Mockingbird, how do Aunt Alexandra and Calpurnia have a positive influence on Scout?

Scout is a little rough around the edges at the beginning of To Kill a Mockingbird. She feels as though the best way to handle a conflict is to beat the person up or and call out a guest's idiosyncrasies. Calpurnia is the first motherly influence in Scout's life and she does not put up with any of the above-mentioned behaviors. For example, when Scout abruptly and loudly asks Walter Cunningham why he has drowned his vegetables in syrup the day he comes for lunch, Calpurnia pulls her into the kitchen right away and says the following:

"Hush your mouth! Don't matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house's yo' comp'ny, and don't you let me catch you remarkin' on their ways like you was so high and mighty! Yo' folks might be better'n the Cunninghams but it don't count for nothin' the way you're disgracin' 'em--if you can't act fit to eat at the table you can just set here and eat in the kitchen!" (24-25).

Calpurnia shows tough love in this situation. She teaches Scout what is right without allowing her to make excuses for Walter's insufficiencies. Scout tries to get Cal fired because of this, but it doesn't work.

Next, Aunt Alexandra is just tough, and Scout has an emotionally difficult time with her. Whether she likes it or not, though, Scout learns to act like a lady from Aunt Alexandra. Since her aunt hosts so many tea parties, Scout is able to see how women dress and act in social situations. She never would have known that women get dressed up, and put on hats, just to cross the street to have refreshments if it were for her aunt teaching by example. But Scout also learns to put on a good face in front of guests even when she might be going through emotionally charged situations. For example, Aunt Alexandra is hosting a tea party when Atticus comes home with news that Tom Robinson was killed escaping from prison. She becomes overwhelmed with the news, but then puts on a good face, controls herself and continues on with the party so that her guests have no clue that she is upset. Scout follows suit and says the following:

"Aunt Alexandra looked across the room at me and smiled. She looked at a tray of cookies on the table and nodded at them. I carefully picked up the tray and watched myself walk to Mrs. Merriweather. With my best company manners, I asked her if she would have some. After all, if Aunty could be a lady at a time like this, so could I" (237).

Scout was upset and shaking when she heard the news about Tom's death, too. This passage shows that Scout learns to calm herself and act like a lady as well. From chapter 3, when Scout was rude to a guest, to chapter 24, when she shows poise and hospitality, she certainly grows in a positive way because of the two motherly women in her life.

How does Shelagh Delaney present the character of Geoff as an outsider in A Taste of Honey?

In Shelagh Delaney's play—and later, film—A Taste of Honey, a teenager named Jo finds herself struggling with her roles and responsibilities in life. She wants to leave school and is frustrated with the impoverished life her mother has set for her. She briefly dates a Black sailor and becomes pregnant by him. During her pregnancy, Jo meets Geoff and the two forge a strange but mutually fulfilling relationship. The two come to fulfill some surrogate parental roles for one another, sharing in advice, consolation, and housekeeping.

Geoff is a young, effeminate man who we can understand based on implicit media "coding" of the time to have been gay. Though his sexuality is never mentioned outright, Geoff as presented as having many feminine behaviors, which were widely conflated with homosexuality in men at the time. (You may notice that this persists in Western culture today, where a man's sexuality may be questioned on the basis of his doing or enjoying something commonly thought of as feminine.) Geoff's sexuality is even more marked as other when we consider the fact that all the other male characters in the play engage in heterosexual intimacy with either Jo or her mother.

We come to know Geoff as an outsider or Other when we find out that he has been kicked out of his apartment by the landlady—surely only something dastardly could warrant such treatment! Unfortunately, it is the truth that many people who were suspected of being gay or otherwise sexually "deviant" were denied or kicked out of housing in this time. Geoff is also presented as being somewhat of an outsider because he is perhaps the most excited for the coming arrival of Jo's baby. Geoff does lots of cleaning and preparation for the birth, in stark contrast to Jo's depression and disdain for her growing child. Geoff's softness, kindness, and optimism are altogether a departure from the attitudes we encounter in the other characters of the play.

Is wind power more reliable than water power?

Wind power and water power (or hydropower) have been used for a very long time, for tasks such as milling grains. They are now mostly being used to generate electricity.

Wind power is dependent on the flow of air, which is ultimately created by the heat from the sun. Even in the most windy areas, there are times when the conditions are really calm and the wind speed is very low. In such times, the power output from a wind mill or wind turbine is low. 

In comparison, water power or hydropower is dependent on the fall of water from a storage. In other words, we collect the water of a stream in an impounding reservoir (behind a dam) and use the potential energy of this water to generate electricity. Since the levels of water can be maintained in the reservoir and there is typically always some water in there, water power can be generated constantly. 

In this way, we might deduce that water power is more reliable. It would depend greatly on the location, though.

Hope this helps. 

In Hard Times, what is the main message that Gradgrind wants to communicate to the students?

The assertion that facts and hard data should form the basis of living is the main message that Gradgrind communicates to his students.  

Gradgrind believes that provable facts must underscore modern reality.  He communicates the importance of “two and two are four, and nothing over" to his students.  He believes any course of study that moves away from facts is not worthy of investigation:

Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts... Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children.

Gradgrind communicates his emphasis through the lessons he teaches his students.  He steers away from artistic explorations, emotional experiences, and anything that cannot be quantified.  The way he teaches his students is through valorizing fact-based reality.  

Gradgrind enhances this message in the way he raises his children.  Gradgrind says that "nothing else" should be evident in a child's mind.  This helps to communicate his primary message that nothing should supersede factual analysis in the way people view the world and their place in it.

What happened during apartheid in South Africa, and how?

From 1948 to 1994, the South African government enforced the social and legal segregation of people of color from white people. Though the roots of racism are much older, Apartheid really began with the election of the (white) National Party gained greater support in the 1940s. The justification for Apartheid was based on a racist system of classification established during the Imperial-Colonialist era and continually benefited the white, colonist, upper classes of society while oppressing and exploiting the native, lower class, people of color. Because the National Party was primarily made up of people descended from the Dutch and English colonists of South Africa, when they came into power, the system of benefit-exploitation became institutionalized and bound up in every part of the law. 

Under Apartheid, physical space was separated according to the amount of access people of differing races could have to it. All Black South Africans were required to carry identification passes with their fingerprints on it when visiting "white" spaces. Whites and people of color were not allowed to marry. Education was segregated not just by race or color but also by the quality of education, with people of color essentially being trained for lives as laborers. Most people of color were also denied their right to vote, and so did not have a say in making changes to this system which continually oppressed them.

In the 1950's, there were attempts to pacify the disquiet of people of color in South Africa by establishing a number of self-governed "homelands." However, the white-run system of South Africa was dependent upon the labor of people of color, and the self-governed homelands were still entirely dependent upon South African economy and administration. What's more, the people of color, now considered citizens of the homelands, had their South African citizenship revoked and now had no rights. Where previously people of different races were able to live in the same geographic space-- say, the same city-- but with differential access, the self-governed homelands approach made it so that people of different races were totally separated from one another. 

With increasing outside pressures from the Western World to establish racial equality, combined with shifting attitudes among the white population of South Africa, some of the heavy restrictions were relaxed into something known as "petty apartheid." Riots persisted among people of color, because while some things were improving, most were trapped and still suffering in this institutionalized racism. In the early 1990's the government began to do away with some of the legislation which had justified Apartheid, but it had become endemic in society and continued on an informal, social level. In 1994, with the election of Nelson Mandela and a black-majority government, Apartheid had officially been ended. The scars of Apartheid remain in South Africa as many people were raised and enculturated into the system of racial oppression.

In the book The Chrysalids by John Wyndham, how do the people from Waknuk treat different people differently than the people from Sealand treat...

The people from the Waknuk society do not tolerate differences within their population. In fact they hang messages up in their homes that say things like "beware of the deviant."  In addition to their aversion to genetic diversity, the Waknuk people actually kill or expel members of the community that are too genetically different. 

On the other side of the issue of genetic diversity are the Sealand people. They see genetic diversity as natural. Not only natural, but they also see it as good. At the very end of the book, the woman from Sealand explains to David how his ability makes him genetically superior to the rest of the Waknuk  society.  She tells him to embrace his genetic differences because they make him far superior to the Waknuks who will soon die out.