In "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," what kind of tone and style of language does Ernest Hemingway use?

In "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," Hemingway uses a matter-of-fact, third-person style that slips into indirect discourse as the narrative focuses in on the older waiter. Throughout the story, the narrator relies on matter-of-fact ideas, primarily through the dialogue of the two waiters.

Throughout the story, the two waiters' attitudes are made clear through their speech. The younger waiters make his distaste for the older man sitting in the cafe clear by wishing him death, saying things like, "You should have killed yourself last week" to the older man.

Meanwhile, the older waiter shows much compassion toward the older man. He exhibits empathy through his speech by discussing the old man's virtues, including a reluctance to "close up because there may be some one who needs the cafe." 

As the story progresses, Hemingway slips into the mind of the older waiter via free indirect discourse as this man exhibits nihilistic tendencies, including the belief in nothing as made evident by his "Lord's Prayer," which replaces much of the  key words with the word "nada."

Throughout this story, the narrator's matter-of-fact tone and language usage draws the reader in, which allows for a greater connection with the story's nihilistic themes.

How did the Seven Years War lead to the tensions that would eventually cause the British colonies in America to declare for independence? Be sure...

The part of the Seven Years War that occurred in North America is typically called the French and Indian War.  The French and Indian War helped cause the British colonies to declare independence mainly because it drove a wedge between them and the government in London.

After the French and Indian War ended, the British government was not in good shape financially.  The war had been very expensive.  The British government felt that the American colonies needed to help pay for the costs of the war.  The government felt that the war had helped the colonies a great deal and that the colonies had not borne their fair share of the costs.  Therefore, the government started to impose taxes on the colonies and also tried to enforce existing laws about trade more effectively so that the government could make more money off colonial trade.  The British did this because they felt that it was only fair for the colonists to help pay for the war.

The colonists, however, did not believe they should be taxed or that the existing laws should be enforced.  They had become used to “salutary neglect” on the part of the British government.  They were accustomed to being left alone and to not being taxed very much.  When the British government imposed taxes and tried to enforce laws more stringently, the colonists felt that their rights were being trampled.

When the British government tried to exert more control, the colonists became angry. When the colonists pushed back, the government became angry because it believed the colonists were unjustly resisting governmental control.  This eventually led the colonies to declare independence.

There are 5 doors in a hostel lounge. Two are red colored and the others are green. In how many ways can a guy enter the room and leave the room...

Hello!

I'm sure that all the doors are distinguishable, i.e. "enter the first red door" and "enter the second red door" are different events.

Then we can 1) enter a red door, leave (through) a green door or 2) enter a green door, leave a red door. The quantities of path in this two options must be added.

There are `5-2=3` green doors. For the option 1, we can enter each of `2` red doors and for each of them can leave through any of `3` green doors, so there are `2*3=6` paths. For the option 2, we can enter each of `3` green doors, leave through any of `2` red doors, again `3*2=6` paths.

And there are `6+6=12 ` paths total. This is the answer.

"a value-free sociology is impossible to achieve and would be undesirable anyway." How valid is this assertion?

I'd say it's quite valid, and applies generally to all social sciences.

While it is important to make careful, accurate observations and avoid bias as much as possible, the idea that we could ever eliminate all value judgments or even all biases is unrealistic. We do the best we can. Simply by deciding to do research in the first place, we are effectively acting on the assumption that the knowledge we will acquire is valuable.

Moreover, it can be dangerous to think that we are eliminating all biases and doing "value-free" research; generally what happens then is that we make implicit, unexamined value assumptions (one that comes up a lot in economics is "maximizing GDP is good"). It's better to instead acknowledge our value assumptions so that we can examine and question them.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean we can just freely inject our own values wherever we want---that would clearly lead to biased research. Instead, we clearly state our value assumptions, and focus on the primary goal of getting objective, accurate observations. If we study a behavior we find morally objectionable (infanticide occurs in many cultures, for example), we try to set that aside when studying it, in order to better understand the motivations behind it. At the end we may still decide that it is morally wrong and want to get rid of it---but by understanding it better we will be better equipped to recommend policies that will actually be effective in doing so.

In the book Wonder, what are Julian's and Summer's last names?

Summer's last name is Dawson and Julian's is Albans. Summer befriends and treats Auggie well when he arrives at Beecher Prep after having been home schooled, as does a boy named Jack Will. They are both able to see beyond Auggie's facial deformity to the person underneath. Julian, on the other hand, finds Auggie physically repulsive and bullies him. He tries to persuade the other students, especially his own gang, to shun Auggie. Julian refers to Auggie as a freak, and writes cruel notes to him. 

It doesn't seem as if Auggie's experiment in attending school is going so well until the class trip to a nature reserve camp, where kids from another school taunt and attack Auggie. At this point, other classmates beside Jack come to Auggie's defense.

What are two passages in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird that show Atticus isn't being a good father/role model?

In To Kill a Mockingbird, there are certainly characters who question Atticus's ability to be a good father and role model. However, the views of those characters are not considered reliable; those views are instead affected by prejudices. Throughout the novel, author Harper Lee develops a tone that indicates she disagrees with the characters who think poorly of Atticus, inciting the reader to disagree with them as well.

One character who clearly sees Atticus as a poor father and role model is Aunt Alexandra, especially with respect to how he raises Scout. In particular, Aunt Alexandra feels he gives Scout far too much freedom to do what she wants to do; the result is that Scout runs wild and is not being raised to be a lady. In Chapter 9, Scout recounts a frequent quarrel she has with her aunt. According to Scout, one thing her aunt says is that Scout "should be a ray of sunshine in [her] father's lonely life." Her aunt further says, Scout was "born good but had grown progressively worse every year." Since it is Atticus's job to raise Scout, Aunt Alexandra's view that Scout had "grown progressively worse" hints at Aunt Alexandra's opinion of Atticus's fathering skills. In Aunt Alexandra's view, Scout was well off when her mother was alive, but Atticus does not know how to raise Scout as a lady and has therefore allowed her to run wild.

Other characters express their views about Atticus being a poor father and role model when they judge him negatively for defending Tom Robinson. Scout observes that, after the trial, her classmates began acting as if their parents were forcing them to be nice to her, since their parents see it is not Scout's fault that she has Atticus for a father, as Scout reflects in the following concerning the "adults of Maycomb," or the parents of Maycomb:

[T]heir attitude must have been that neither of us could help having Atticus for a parent, so their children must be nice to us in spite of him. (Ch. 26)

Scout further reflects on the irony of how, despite the fact the town seemed to think Atticus was a terrible parent, they still elected him again to the state legislature without any opposition.  

What are some errors in judgment that Atticus makes in To Kill a Mockingbird?

If Atticus made an error in judgment, it was in not taking Bob Ewell seriously. Atticus believed Bob Ewell was all talk, not a real threat. 

Atticus did his best to defend Tom Robinson even though he knew convincing the jury Tom was innocent was next to impossible. He knew subjecting his children to the criticism and drama would be difficult, but he believed that it would be good for them to learn life lessons. Atticus did so well during the trial in defending Tom Robinson that the jury even deliberated, rather than immediately convicting him. 

Bob Ewell was humiliated by the trial. Atticus dragged his family’s history and dirty laundry into the open. Even though Robinson was convicted, Ewell was aware no one really believed Tom did anything to Mayella Ewell. Bob Ewell was exposed to all of Maycomb as a negligent, abusive drunkard.

Atticus did not really react to Bob Ewell spitting in his face.  He believed Ewell had said his piece, saved face, and would be able to move on. When Scout and Jem ask Atticus to carry a gun for protection, he tells his children he is not afraid of Ewell, saying,

I destroyed his last shred of credibility at that trial, if he had any to begin with. The man had to have some kind of comeback, his kind always does. So if spitting in my face and threatening me saved Mayella Ewell one extra beating, that’s something I’ll gladly take. He had to take it out on somebody and I’d rather it be me than that houseful of children out there (Chapter 23).

Atticus should have been a little more cautious, even if he really did believe that Ewell was done. Ewell was heard saying “it made one down and about two more to go” after Tom Robinson was killed going over the prison fence (Chapter 25). That sounds like a threat directed toward Atticus’s children. 

It probably would have been better if someone had walked Scout and Jem home on Halloween night. Atticus felt there was no danger because Scout and Jem were together and Maycomb was a safe town. The children had to walk through areas where there were not a lot of people around, however, and this made them vulnerable to Bob Ewell. Fortunately, Boo Radley was watching out for them and intervened.