Solve the following system. 2x-y=5 , x+3y = 12

2x-y = 5..(1) and x+3y =
12...(2).

We solve the equations using the analytic
geometry.

Here, we a have two linear equations in x and y.
We have to solve for the values of x and y. We recast both equations in the
slope intercept form, like:  y = max+c.

2x-y= 5 => y
= 2x-5....................................(1).

x+3y = 12
=> y = -(1/3)x + 4......................(2).

We can
Easily see that the slopes of the two equations are not same. So they are not parallel.
So the equations representing two non parallel lines definitely intesect  giving some
definite solutions.

At the point of intersection, y
coordinates are same. So we equate the right sides of the equations (1) and (2) and
solve for x (or coordinate).

2x-5 =
-(1/3)x+4.

(2+1/3)x =
5+4.

7x/3 = 9.

(7x/3)*(3/7) =
9*3/7 =
27/7.

x= 27/7.

Therefore,
using  the first equation, y = 2x-5, where we put x = 27/7, we get: y = 2(27/7) - 5 =
19/7.

Therefore x= 27/7 and y =
19/7.

In chapter 4 in Of Mice and Men, why is the stable buck given his own room?

The above editor is correct:  the information you need is
in chapter four of the novel, rather than in chapter
two. 

If you need evidence for your answer, it begins on
page 75 of my edition.  The entire chapter takes place in Crooks' room, which is
adjacent to the barn and is entered through the barn.  When Lennie appears and explains
that he saw Crooks' light on, so he came in, Crooks
says:

"Well,
I got a right to have a light.  You go on get outta my room.  I ain't wanted in the bunk
house, and you ain't wanted in my room."

"Why ain't you
wanted?"  Lennie asked.

"'Cause I'm black.  They play cards
in there, but I can't play because I'm black.  They say I stink.  Well, I tell you, you
all of you stink to
me."

Crooks isn't allowed in
the bunk house, because of segregation.  The races are kept apart.  The reader assumes
that the idea of Crooks stinking is a stereotypical idea the whites project upon him due
to their prejudices.  They don't want him in the bunk house because he is
black. 

How did Heck Tate alter the evidence about Boo Radley killing Bob to fit his lie?

The other teacher is correct. In chapter 30, Heck Tate and
Atticus are discussing what happened and Atticus thinks at first that Jem was the one
that killed Bob Ewell. Heck insists on calling the death an accident, but Atticus, ever
the fair and impartial lawyer, doesn’t want Jem protected from the law. Heck insists
that Ewell fell on his knife and that Jem didn’t kill him. Heck knows that Boo is the
one who stabbed Ewell but he wants to keep the facts secret. He says that Boo, with his
"quiet ways", doesn’t need the entire town bothering him any more than they have in the
past. He reminds Atticus that Tom Robinson died for no reason and now the man
responsible for that miscarriage of justice (Bob Ewell) is dead. “Let the dead bury the
dead,” he tells Atticus.

Some of my students have taken
issue with this ending - the fact that Atticus agreed to keep things quiet. They said it
was out of character - that a man who was even willing to allow his own son to be
exposed to the workings of the law (when Atticus thought it was Jem who killed Ewell)
would not have so easily agreed to hush up Boo's deed. What do you think about this? I
think Atticus did act according to character because sometimes we
must listen to a higher power, and surely that power would not have wanted Boo to suffer
any further abuse.

Are the events in Macbeth predestined (under the influence of Fate), or would you say that the witches manipulated Macbeth?

Concerning Shakespeare's Macbeth, the
answer depends largely on the beliefs you bring to the
play.

With a modern mindset, which you probably possess,
you probably, following a thorough reading and study of the drama, would insist that
Macbeth has free will and makes choices, then suffers the
consequences.

For an Elizabethan, or someone who believes
in predestination, however, plenty of evidence exists in the play that could convince
such a person that predestination, or fate, as you call it, is at
play.

For instance, if the witches know the future, do they
just know it or do they cause it?  Is there a line between knowing the future and
causing it?  Even if one finds rational explanations for the predictions concerning
Macbeth (he'll be Cawdor, king, Birnam Wood will move, a man born of a body instead of a
woman will kill him), one is still left with the prediction that Banquo's heirs will be
kings.  How do the witches know that?  And, again, if they know it, does a supernatural
force cause it?

And free will and predestination were
contemporary issues in Elizabethan England, brought into focus by the Protestant
Reformation.

In short, Shakespeare is often ambiguous, and
this issue, as it is presented in Macbeth, is no exception.  You
can make a case both ways.  My modern mind tells me that the witches are manipulative
and Macbeth obsessively ambitious, and he makes choices to get what he wants.  But I can
argue the opposite, as well. 

Show that 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 …n^2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6

We can prove this by
induction.

For n = 1, n (n+1) (2n+1)/6 = 1*2*3/6 = 1.
Therefore the relation is true.

Now, if we assume 1^2 + 2^2
+ 3^2 …n^2 = n (n+1) (2n+1)/6

1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 …n^2 + (n +1)
^2 = n (n+1) (2n+1)/6 + (n+1) ^2

= (n+1) [n (2n+1)/6 +
n+1]

= (n +1) (2n^2 + n + 6n +
6)/6

= (n +1) (2n^2 + 7n +
6)/6

= (n +1) (2n^2 + 3n + 4n +
6)/6

= (n +1) (n (2n + 3) + 2(n +
3)/6

= (n +1) (n+2) (2n +
3)/6

= (n +1) (n+1+ 1) (2(n +1)
+1)/6

Which is the expression n (n+1) (2n+1)/6, with n
replaced by n+1.

So as the relation is true for n = 1, and
if it is assumed true for any n, we can show that it is also true for n+1; the relation
is true for all values of n.

Given a=square root of 3 - i and f(x) = x^4-4x^2+16, prove that f(a)=0.

If f(a)=0, then a = sqrt3 - i is the root of the
polynomial f(x).

We'll substitute x by a and we'll verify
if f(a) = 0

f(a) = a^4 - 4a^2 +
16

f(a) = a^2(a^2 - 4) +
16

We'll re-write the difference of squares a^2 - 4 =
(a-2)(a+2)

a = sqrt3 - i

We'll
square raise both sides:

a^2 = (sqrt3 -
i)^2

We'll expand the
square:

a^2 = 3 - 2isqrt3 + i^2, where i^2 =
-1

a^2 = 2 - 2isqrt3

f(sqrt3 -
i) = (2 - 2isqrt3)(2 - 2isqrt3 - 4) + 16

We'll combine like
terms inside brackets:

f(sqrt3 - i) = (2 - 2isqrt3)(-2 -
2isqrt3) + 16

f(sqrt3 - i) = -(2 - 2isqrt3)(2 + 2isqrt3) +
16

We'll write the product as a difference of
squares:

f(sqrt3 - i) = -(2^2 - 4*3*i^2) +
16

f(sqrt3 - i) = - (4 + 12) +
16

f(sqrt3 - i) = -16 +
16

f(sqrt3 - i) =
0

So, f(a) = 0, where a =  sqrt3 - i,
q.e.d.

Please give a summary of the poem "The Tame Bird was in a Cage" by Tagore.

In this poem by Rabindranath Tagore, there are two birds,
one in a cage and one free. The caged bird is trying to get the free bird to join him in
the cage, while the free bird wants the caged bird to come to the forest and be free.
The birds go back and forth with positive elements in trying to convince each other to
come to their side. The free bird says, "My darling, sing the songs of the woodlands" to
which the caged bird answers, "Sit by my side, I'll teach you the speech of the
learned." They also entreat negative elements in trying to convince each other that they
are on the better side. Here, the free bird questions the caged bird and his "home":
"Among bars, where is there room to spread one's wings?" The caged bird says in return:
"I should not know where to sit perched in the sky."

The
end of the poem illustrates that the free bird has the better situation. You could argue
that the caged bird is just looking for company in trying to get the free bird to join
him. The final line of the poem illustrates this very powerfully. He whispers to his
friend "Alas, my wings are powerless and dead."

What is the definition of a "biosocial task"?

The definition of the word "biosocial"
is:

of,
pertaining to, or entailing the interaction or combination of social and biological
factors.

As the word
suggests, biosocial contains aspects of both biology and sociology.
A biosocial task, then, is anything one does which connects the two things. For example,
cutting down all the trees in a primitive forest is an act which has purely biological
ramifications--unless it is the forest from which a tribe of people gain their
sustenance. Then it becomes a biosocial action because it changes how a culture
lives. 

Social behaviors can also be affected by biological
factors, such as how people dress (depending on the weather) and what they eat
(depending on what is available in their environment).

The
word task does imply something more deliberate than, say,
inadvertently polluting water which then changes the fishing habits of people
downstream; however, anything which impacts both the biology and social behavior of
something else would be considered a bisosocial act. 

uprootedness, transplantation, and dual construction of ethnicity is the most aplicable to African Americans1. The pre-Civil War era with the...

During the pre-Civil War era, Africans could not even be
referred to as African-Americans, because they were considered property. They were
"uprooted" from their native homes (Africa, mostly) and "transplanted" into a foreign
country where everything was different - weather, customs, food, people. They were
removed from their families and thrown in together with other people that they did not
know - new family, new world. They were therefore removed from the cultural group from
which they obtained their "ethnicity." The first of the two concepts were the strongest
during this period because I don't believe they even thought about their eroding
"ethnicity" - they were in survival mode. Even when they had children, their families
were separated, so the cycle of uprootedness and transplantation continued, although
now, the transplantation was not as pronounced since they were not being moved to
another country, but to another place within the same
country.

During the Civil War and Reconstruction,
transplantation and uprootedness continued but again, it was inter-country, so maybe not
as pronounced as when they were torn away from their native countries. During this
period, they perhaps began to focus on their ethnicity more. Who were they really? They
were Africans, but by this time, most of them had not been born in Africa. They were
living in America, but they were not really like other Americans - they were
downtrodden, they were not treated equally. They were living in Jim Crow America, even
though they were emancipated. Most could not vote and persecution and prejudice were
rampant. This was when the KKK arose, after the Civil War and during Reconstruction. I
think that during post-Reconstruction, there was the strongest concentration on dual
construction of ethnicity because the people wanted to maintain their African culture,
but they also wanted to be accepted as free Americans --
African-Americans.

In some ways, African-Americans are
still struggling with a dual construction of ethnicity. For example, a personal friend
of mine recently chastised her daughter for wanting to name her child (my friend's
grandaughter) Abigail. My friend told her daughter that this name was "too Eurocentric"
and that she should pick something more along the lines of their ethnicity. So, the
little girl's middle name is Abigail.

Solve the equation cos5x+cos3x+cosx=0.

We'll notice the fact that we have a sum of 3 cosine
functions, so we can transform the sum of 2 of them into a
product.

We'll group the first term with the last and we'll
transform their sum into a product:

cos 5x + cos x = 2cos
[(5x+x)/2]cos[(5x-x)/2]

cos 5x + cos x =
2cos(6x/2)cos(4x/2)

cos 5x + cos x = 2 cos3x
cos2x

cos5x+cos3x+cosx = 2 cos3x cos2x +
cos3x

We'll notice the common factor
cos3x:

cos3x(2cos2x + 1) =
0

cos3x
=cos(2x+x)=cos2xcosx-sin2xsinx

cos2xcosx-sin2xsinx =
(2(cosx)^2 -1)cosx - 2cosx(sinx)^2

We'll transform (sinx)^2
= 1-(cosx)^2 and we'll open the
brackets:

2(cosx)^3-cosx-2cosx+2(cosx)^3=4(cosx)^3-3cosx

So,
cos3x(2cos2x + 1) = 0 will be written
as:

(4(cosx)^3-3cosx){2[2(cosx)^2 -1] +
1}=0

cosx(4(cosx)^2-3)(4(cosx)^2-1)=0

cos
x = 0, so x=pi/2 and
3pi/2

4(cosx)^2-3=0

4(cosx)^2=3

(cosx)^2=3/4

cosx=+/-sqrt3/2

x=pi/6,
11pi/6 and x=5pi/6,
7pi/6

4(cosx)^2-1=0

4(cosx)^2=1

cosx=+/-1/2

x=pi/3,5pi/3
and x=2pi/3, 4pi/3.

Discuss the factors that influence reactions to stress.

Stress is a reaction to environmental causes which
according to psychologists is "essential for our survival." When we were not as
technologically advanced as we are now, it resulted in the production of hormones that
enabled us to escape from predators and stay alive. In today's world also, stress brings
out hidden abilities and enables people to perform in the best ways that they are
capable of.

Though beneficial for short durations,
long-term stress has detrimental effects on our health. It can lead to several serious
problems like cardiac ailments, digestive problems, and some even say several types of
cancers can be attributed to stress.

To protect ourselves
from these health complications it is essential that we find ways to reduce stress as
far as possible. If that does not work, ways to keep the body calm during stressful
situations should be sought. These could include taking deep breaths, thinking of things
that calm the mind, or the use of medication for short durations of
time.

Where does Jonas show courage and integrity?

Jonas shows courage in a lot of ways in this book. For
example:

• He shows courage when he starts to
  learn about pain in the memories he is given.  He has to keep going back for more even
  when some of them (like the war) are very painful.


• He
  shows it even more when he decides to take Gabe and leave the community.  He surely
  knows that he will die if he is caught, but he does it
  anyway.

To me, this is also his biggest show of
integrity.  He believes that what his society is doing is not right.  So he decides that
he is not going to just allow it to keep happening, even though that would be the
easiest thing to do.  I think this shows integrity.

Is there any alliteration in the first six chapters, if there is provide the page numberTo Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

It is interesting that students use alliteration so often
in their conversations, but yet seemed somewhat puzzled when called upon to identify it
in a work of literature.  Unlike assonance, which is the repetition of a particular
vowel sound, alliteration, the repetition of initial cosonant sounds, can be recognized
visually as well as phonetically. 

Here are some additional
examples with the letter's sound indicated:

CHAPTER
1

(the very first
sentence!)

readability="6">

When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got
his arm badly broken at the elbow
/b/

As Scout relates the
family history, she describes her father's law office in the sixth
paragraph:

readability="9">

Atticus's office in the courthouse contained
litle more than a hat rack, a spittoon, a checkerboard, and an unsullied Code of
Alabama. /c/

In this same
chapter, the final paragraph contains another
example:

The
old house was the same, droopy and sick, but as we stared down the street we thought we
saw inside shutter move.
/s/

CHAPTER
2

In the thirty-first paragraph, Scout describes the action
of her teacher:

readability="8">

Miss Caroline walked up and down the rows peering
and poking into lunch containers, nodding if the contents pleased her, frowning a little
at others.  /p/

As Burris
Ewell leaves the schoolroom, he shouts back at Miss
Caroline,

readability="5">

'Aint' no snot-nosed slut of a schoolteacher ever
born c'n make me do nothin'!'   /s/  and
/m/

CHAPTER
3

Not far from the end of the chapter, Atticus explains the
history of the Ewells to the children:

readability="7">

'In certain circumstances, the common folk
judiciously allowed them certain privileges by the simple method of becoming blind to
some of the Ewells activites.' /c/ 
/b/

CHAPTER
4

In paragraph eighteen, Scout describes a change at
home:

For some
reason,...Calpurnia's tyranny unfairness, and meddling in my business had faded to
gentle grumblings of general
disapproval.

CHAPTER
5

Describing their childhood play, Scout narrates in the
fourth paragraph,

readability="8">

Our tacit treaty with Miss Maudie was that we
could play on lawn,...terms so generous we seldom spoke to her, so careful were we to
preserve the delicate balance of our relationship....  /t/ 
/m/

CHAPTER
6

As the children sit with Dill on his last night in
Maycomb, Scout notices,

readability="5">

There was a lady in the moon in Maycomb.
/m/

Explain the role of catharsis in a tragedy?Explain why catharsis is important in a tragedy.

Catharsis refers to a purging of emotions, purification
and sometimes a renewal resulting from pity, sorrow, sympathy or even laughter.
Catharsis applies to the experience of a character or the experience of the
audience.

The term catharsis comes from Aristotle’s
Poetics. He said that a catharsis was a purgation of pent up
emotion. Plato believed poetry was emotional and irrational. But Aristotle saw poetry as
an outlet for emotion; thus, a purgation.

This is usually
when a character undergoes a mental or physical change, often because of suffering, and
must experience an emotional overflow. The audience may identify and empathize with the
character because suffering is universal. The experience of catharsis is meant to use
this overflow of emotion as an outlet in order to return to a state of balance and
harmony. For example, in It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey loses
his temper, contemplates suicide and questions the purpose of his own existence. It is
through this emotional and philosophical introspection and purging that he is able to
put things into perspective and return to a harmonious
life.

The most cited example is the tragedy of
Oedipus Rex. Oedipus is a tragic figure. Some theorists have
supposed that audiences get a cathartic relief when watching tragedies because they
appreciate not being in the protagonist’s position. Oedipus blinding himself is the
height of his cathartic experience: a total overflow of emotion. Aristotle said
catharsis was the aesthetic function of a tragedy. That function is to bring the
audience to an emotional height and then resolve the story, bringing them back down
again.

Determine the trigonometric form of z=-2i.

z = -2i. To find the trigonometric
form

We know that if z = x+yi is the Cartesian form, then 
r*cost + i*sint is the trigonometric form  of x+yi. Here r = (x^2+y^2)^(1/2) ,  rcost =
x, r*sin t = y and t = arc tan (y/x).

Therefore z =
0+(-2*i)

r = {0^2+(-2)^2}^(/2) =
2.

x = 0 = 2cost and y= -2i = 2i*sint. So t =  arc tan
(-2/0) = -pi/2.

So -2i = 2cos(-pi)/2+ i*sin
(-pi/2).

So 2cos(-pi)/2+ i*sin
(-pi/2) is the trigonometric form of -2i.

In Gone with the Wind, can somebody describe Scarlett's coming-of age in terms of aesthetic experience?

Scarlett O' Hara was very fond of the fact that she would
be at an age where she gets to flaunt the latest fashions, the smallest waist line, and
the best-looking features among the other young ladies of her
age.

Even though she slightly acknowledged that her
ultimate fate would be to serve as wife and mother to someone in the future, she enjoyed
her entrance into womanhood by ensuring that her looks were not only pleasing to the
young gentlemen callers, but also painful and intimidating to her fellow cotillion
belles.

When she became a widow for the first time, she was
still literally coming of age because she was still very young and had not even spent
enough time with a husband who died while he was away at War. Yet, she could not
understand how she, being so young and vibrant, had to be tucked in black taffeta for
two whole years before she could come back to
"normal".

This is significant aesthetically speaking,
because this is when she and Rhett had their first dance together which shocked the
audience present, since a widow, clearly in "mourning" was happily dancing away. And,
speaking of Rhett, he also disagreed with the anti-aesthetic idea of "burying the women
along with their husbands" when it comes to dress codes, behavior codes, and all other
things that seriously take away the femininity out of the gender and plunges them into
ugly creatures of habit. This is what Scarlett always feared...and always got away
from!

In King Lear, why does Lear go to Albany's palace?

As the play gets underway, many events happen quickly.
King Lear voluntarily gives up his power, planning to divide his kingdom among his three
daughters--Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. When Cordelia displeases her father by refusing
to flatter him, King Lear banishes her and divides his kingdom between Goneril and
Regan. His plan is to live with his daughters, alternating the times spent with them.
Albany is Goneril's husband. King Lear goes to Albany's palace to take up residence with
Goneril first, as he had planned.

The end of the first
scene in Act I, however, shows that Goneril and Regan are not happy with the prospect of
their father living with them. His banishment of Cordelia has made them distrust his
judgment and his rash behavior. Goneril says this to
Regan:

Pray
you, let's hit together. If our father carry authority with such dispositions as he
bears, this last surrender of his will but offend
us.

She speaks what they both
are thinking: they do not like their father's planned living arrangements. The two
daughters agree to think about this. Goneril says, "We must do something, and i' the
heat," meaning soon.

As a result, after King Lear and his
attendants have settled themselves in Albany's palace, Goneril soon makes her father
leave, sending him to Regan, who won't have him either.

In the following case, why would it have been better if the police sent only the three radios stolen earlier instead of adding more? Police...

It would have been better if the police had only sent the
three radios with the thief because then there would be less ground for the defendant to
claim entrapment.

Entrapment occurs, as the link below
says,when government officials do something

readability="5">

that induces a person to commit a crime he or she
is not previously disposed to
commit.

One can argue that
the defendant was previously disposed to commit the crime of buying the three stolen
radios, but that he was not disposed to buy the other 11 that the police sent along with
the thief.  Therefore, by sending the extra radios, the police actually bolster the
defendant's ability to claim entrapment.

The defendant can
also claim that the other 11 radios were not actually stolen property.  He can say that,
once the police got possession of those radios, the radios ceased to be stolen
property.

It is not clear that either of these defenses
will work, but they were made much more feasible by the police action in adding the 11
other stolen radios to the original 3 the defendant was going to
buy.

Give a character analysis of the mother in "The Rocking Horse Winner." How does she differ from stepmothers in fairy tales such as Cinderella,...

The story starts off with a very full description of the
mother, and it would be worth going through this again to pick out some of the answers
you are looking for. We are told that although she started out with "all the
advantages", she had "no luck". In particular, we are given key facts about her
relationship with her children, who, although are "bonny", she feels no love
for:

She had
bonny children, yet she felt they had been thrust upon her, and she could nto love them.
They looked at her coldly, as if they were finding fault with her... when her children
were present, she always felt the center of her heart go
hard.

So, she appears to be
incapable of loving and has a hardness deep within her. It is her sense of frustrated
expectations and "the grinding sense of the shortage of money" because style must be
kept up that seems to imbue the entire house with the eery
phrase:

readability="5">

There must be more money! There must be
more money!

This
hardness of the mother's combined with her greed causes Paul, in perhaps an attempt to
gain her affection, to try to become "lucky" and thereby gain money to please her.
However, when he wins and organises for some of the money to be given to her, note how
the mother reacts:

readability="8">

As his mother read it [the letter informing her
of the money], her face hardened and became more expressionless. Then a cold, determined
look came on her mouth.

Note
too how this affects the voices in the house:

readability="7">

Then something very curious happened. The voices
in the house suddenly went mad, like a chorus of frogs on a spring
evening.

It appears than
trying to satisy the mother's hunger for money only gives her more of a thirst for it -
she is literally consumed by her desire for more money, and how ever much she has it is
never enough. The words of her brother at the end of the story clearly state the dangers
of this. She has gained a big sum of money but has lost her son in the process. Thus the
mother clearly shows the dangers of unbridled greed.

'Organization is not simply a group of people at a given place.' What do you infer from this statement?

This statement implies that an organization cannot simply
be made up of a random group of people.  If that is so, then we must ask what
does make an organization.  The first inference I draw from
this statement, then, is that an organization must have a purpose.  The organization
must exist to serve some purpose that is important to its
members.

A second thing that can be inferred from this
statement is that an organzation does not need to be limited to a particular physical
place.  An organization can be any group of people who are associated with one another
for a given purpose.  In other words, having a common purpose is much more important
than being in a common place.

So this statement implies
that organizations must have purposes and that they need not be made up of people who
are in the same physical place.

How do nuclear power plants provide energy?

All power plants provide energy through the process of
electromagnetic induction. A rotor, containing magnets, spins inside a coil of wire and
induces a current in the wires.  The rotor is spun either through the use of flowing
water (hydroelectric power) or by passing high pressure steam through the
rotor.

The heat energy to generate the steam is produced
either by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas or by the heat
generated in a controlled nucear chain reaction.

In a
nuclear power plant rods containing a few % U-235 are bombarded with neutrons. Every
time a uranium atom splits it forms two smaller atoms, gives off several neutrons, and
produces heat energy.  By the use of control rods the operators in the power plant
either slow down or speed up the chain reaction to produce the desired armount of heat
energy and resultant steam to power the generators.

Nuclear
power produces about 15-20% of the electricity used in the United States but as high as
80% in France and increasing amounts in many other countries, including
Japan.

What are some ancient Egyptian cultural pratices?

Important Egyptian cultural practices include:
mummification and the burial of the dead, veneration of ancestors and spirits, and
veneration of royalty.

Our sense of Egyptian culture (and
any ancient culture) is greatly skewed due to the fact that our main way of accessing
that culture is archaeologically. Archaeology, with its emphasis on cultural artifacts
that stand the test of time, limit our ability to know what everyday life may have been
like for the Egyptians.

We do know that royalty and other
wealthy individuals were buried with most of their earthly belongings, and hieroglyphs
walls and papyri strongly suggest that the ancient Egyptians believed in an afterlife
scenario akin to modern-day heaven and hell.

People paid
respect to Pharaohs by commissioning pyramids and other architectural feats for them. It
is likely that ancestors played a big part in Egyptian cultural practices as
well.

Determine the remainder if f=3x^4-2x^3+x^2+ax-1 is divided by (x-1)^2.

We'll write the division with
reminder:

f(x) = (x-1)^2*C(x) +
R(x)

Since the divisor is a polynomial of second order, the
reminder is a polynomial of first order.

R(x) = mx +
n

We'll calculate f(1):

f(1) =
(1-1)^2*C(1) + R(1)

f(1) =
R(1)

We'll determine f(1), substituting x by 1 in the given
expression of polynomial f:

f(1) =
3-2+1+a-1

f(1) = 1 + a

R(1) =
m + n

m + n = 1+a (1)

Now,
we'll calculate the first derivative of f(x):

f'(x) =
(3x^4-2x^3+x^2+ax-1)'

f'(x) = 12x^3 - 6x^2 + 2x +
a

f'(x) = [(x-1)^2*C(x) +
R(x)]'

f'(x) = 2(x-1)*C(x) + (x-1)^2*C'(x) +
R'(x)

f'(x) = 2(x-1)*C(x) + (x-1)^2*C'(x) +
m

f'(1) = m

f'(1) = 12 - 6 + 2
+ a

m = 8 + a (2)

We'll
substitute (2) in  (1):

1+a = 8 + a +
n

We'll subtract 8 + a:

n = 1
+ a - 8 - a

We'll eliminate and combine like
terms:

n =
-7

The reminder R(x)
is:

R(x) = (8 + a)x -
7

What is x if cos4x=cos2x ?

To solve this equation, we'll move all the terms to the
left side:

cos 4x - cos 2x =
0

Since the trigonometric functions are matching , we'll
transform the difference into a product.

2
sin[(4x+2x)/2]*sin [(2x-4x)/2]=0

2 sin3x* sin
(-x)=0

From this product of 2 factors, one or the other
factor is zero.

sin3x=0

This
is an elementary equation:

3x = (-1)^k*arcsin 0 +
k*pi

3x = k*pi

x = k*pi/3,
where k is an integer number.

We'll solve the second
elementary equation:

sin
(-x)=0

-sin (x)=0

sin
x=0

x=(-1)^k arcsin 0 +
k*pi

x=k*pi

The
set of solutions is : S={k*pi/3}U{k*pi}.

What is the summary of "Postmaster?"

Tagore's short story is probably one of the most profound
works in his vast arsenal of composition.  The story revolves around a postmaster who is
relocated from his native urban setting of Calcutta to a remote village.  In this
village exists an orphaned girl of Ratan, who is discarded and marginalized in the
village.  The Postmaster finds the transition to village life a difficult one and this
precludes him from fully being able to execute his responsibilities.  Ratan slowly
emerges as the only source of assistance for him.  She takes care of him and helps him
battle from illness while tending to him as best as he could ever hope.  At the same
time, he teaches her how to read and her loyalty to him increases, becoming even more
fervent. The entire while, the postmaster still yearns to go back to his urban setting. 
At a certain point, he must leave and Ratan, recognizing both her need for him and
perhaps his need for her, begs to take her with him back to the city, he laughs and
leaves her behind.  The closing of the short story involves the Postmaster reflecting
about his decision, recognizing that he might have done the wrong thing, and then
seeking to rationalize it away from his consciousness.

Please explain the effectiveness of the narrative point of view in Alexie`s story "This Is What it Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona".

First, let me say that I'm not sure what you mean when you
use the term "effectiveness." By "narrative point of view" I'm making the assumption
that you mean Alexie's use of a third person narrator who doesn't always seem to be
omniscient throughout the book Lone Ranger & Tonto Fistfight in
Heaven, but seems to be fairly clear in the story "This Is What It
Means..."

If you are asking whether the use of a
first-person narrative point of view would be more effective than the limited third
person perspective of Victor, it is really just a matter of opinion. I think that
Alexie's third person perspective of an unreliable narrator like Victor is a highly
effective way to convey the emotional impact of his father's death and the memories of
his childhood it triggers for him as well as his sense of loss in general, not just for
his father but for the Native American way of life.

If
Alexie had used a first-person perspective, then the reader would not understand
Victor's plight as well, because Victor himself does not really understand his emotions.
He uses Thomas as a touchstone for how he is feeling, and he doesn't even realize it.
And even when the perspective switches to Thomas, it is Victor's memories of Thomas that
the reader is getting, giving the reader a greater understanding of what it means to be
Victor Joseph.

How did Atticus explain Bob Ewell's provocative behavior in To Kill a Mockingbird?(Chapters 23-25)Why do you think he told this to his children?

I think that the answer you are looking for in at the
start of Chapter 23.  There, Atticus says that the reason Bob Ewell is acting like this
is that his pride and credibility has been destroyed by the trial.  If he does not do
something to fight back, he will lose respect for himself and maybe people will look
down on him even more.

I think that Atticus says this for a
couple of reasons.  First, I think he wants the kids not to be afraid.  Second, I think
he wants them to see all people, even Ewell, as people who have valid and understandable
feelings.  He wants them to stand in the other person's shoes and understand their
outlook.

Please provide me with a plot summary of "An Unfinished Story" by O. Henry?i need it for my presentation,please help me out.i m totally confused...

Most of the plot of this story occurs in "the past."  The
speaker has died and is going to be judged by God -- judged for his actions.  While
there, he is asked by an angel if he belongs to a certain group of men waiting to be
judged.  At that point, we flash back to the life of someone named
Dulcie.

She is a poor girl who works for $6 per week (a
long time ago).  That is very little money and she is often hungry.  She has been asked
on a date by a fairly rich guy (Piggy).  It seems that he dates poor girls.  What is
implied is that he gives them food and such and expects them to sleep with
him

Dulcie refuses at the last minute to go out with him. 
But the narrator tells us that at some later time when she is hungrier, she does go out
with him.

Then we return to the afterlife.  The group of
men the angel had asked about were men who owned the places that girls like Dulcie
worked -- the men who paid them so little they had to sleep with men to get
food,

The speaker says he burned down orphanages and killed
a blind man -- but he was not as bad as the men who paid the girls so
little.

What are some of the ways that you can compare and contrast Whitman and Dickinson?

The previous post was quite thorough.  I would only like
to add that one particular point of convergence in both is how the notion of American
literary voice was rooted in self expression.  Both thinkers held true to the idea that
any notion of the universal comes from the subjective, and that from this only can truth
be fully understood.  However, within this form of expression might also be a point of
divergence.  Whitman is quite passionate about the democratic political form as being
the best political structure to express this subjective experience.  Whitman is able to
assert complete confidence in how the heterogeneous composition of American Democracy
helps to enhance individual voice.  Dickinson is not so sold on the idea of political
expressions of the good, in general.  Her writing does not explicitly articulate how
politics fits into the subjective expression of self.  This difference in perception on
the role and function of political orders might be one additional area of contrast
between both thinkers.

If f(x)=5x-2 and g(x)= cubed sqrt of x ( or x^(1/3)), evaluate (fog)(-8)

We have f(x) = 5x - 2 and g(x) = x^(1/3) [ I have assumed
by cubed sqrt you mean raised to the power (1/3)]

We have
to find fog( - 8)

fog(x) = f(g(x)) = f(
x^(1/3))

=5 * x^(1/3) - 2

For
x = -8

fog(-8) = 5*(-8)^(1/3) -
2

=> 5* (-2) -
2

=> -10 - 2

=>
-12

The required result is
-12

What is the difference between a change in quantity supplied and a shift in the supply curve?

There are a few different ways to think about
this.

Graphically, a change in quantity supplied is simply
a movement along a given supply curve.  The curve does not move--it is just that you
move from one point to another on that curve.  By contrast, a shift in the supply curve
involves the whole curve moving.

Another way to think about
it is to say that a change in QS is caused by a change in the sale price of the product
we are talking about.  If the price that you can get when you sell fish changes, the QS
of fish changes.

A change in the supply curve, by contrast,
means that there will be a different amount of the product offered for sale
even though the sale price does not change.  When the
supply curve moves, it means that something else has happened.  Perhaps, for example,
the price of the fuel for fishing boats has dropped.  If that happens, fishermen will
supply more fish even if the sale price of fish does not
change.

So a change in QS is a movement along a curve that
is caused by a change in the sale price of the produce.  A change in supply is a shift
of the curve that is caused by something other than the sale price of the
product.

How does Fitzgerald tell the story in Chapter 2 of The Great Gatsby?Particularly in terms of language, form & structure.

Chapter 2 begins with a description of the Valley of the
Ashes.  The language here is reminiscent of Eliot's The
Wasteland:

readability="8">

. . .ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys
and rising smoke and finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and
already crumbling through the powdery
air.

This is a place that is
occupied by "ash-grey men" with "leaden spades."  Above the "bleak dust" is the
billboard with the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg.  It is the ultimate god of
consumerism, the idol of not only those who have but also those who have
not.

Against this backdrop, Tom introduces Myrtle, his
mistress, to Nick.  Here at Wison's garage we see two characters who are attempting to
rise above their miserable surroundings:  George, who is almost already defeated, and
Myrtle, who still aspires to bigger and better things.  She alone seems to possess a
certain vitality--perhaps because her dreams are still
alive.

The second part of this chapter is the dinner party
at Myrtle's apartment in the city.  It is juxtaposed to the description of the Gatsby's
party in the following chapter.  We see contrasts between the two, but also surprising
similarities.  In both parties, we see artificiality, callousness, superficiality,
drunkenness, and chaos.  Myrtle's party is a more intimate scene, full of disparaging
talk about her husband George and her meeting with Tom.  Her pretentiousness is blatant
in her remarks about her dress and the help.  It corresponds nicely to Gatsby's own
pretentious language and dress, described in the following chapter.  We see that Myrtle
is only being used by Tom, and the possibility of her rising from her current status is
bleak.

The chapter is told from Nick's perspective, and
 Nick narrates Tom's infidelity seemingly without judgment  Yet, through his
description, we see the party as a tawdry affair, full of trivial conversation and with
no true connections among the guests. And, Nick, seems to
be

enchanted
and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of
life.

This seems to be Nick's
tone throughout the chapter.  As each guest is described, each seems somewhat ludicrous:
 Catherine with her eyebrows; McKee and his wife inspecting guests for possible photo
shots. The party at Myrtle's is narrated as Nick proceeds to get drunker and drunker.
 Events become cloudy and confused, finally descending into a fight between Tom and
Myrtle, in which Myrtle's nose is broken, and Nick wakes up beside Mr. McKee.  The
chapter ends with Nick alone at the train station.

The two
sections of this chapter relate well--the first shows the motivation of those living in
the Valley of the Ashes to change their status; the second shows the improbability of
that occurring.  Alcohol temporarily eases the pain of the fact that time is passing and
everyone is at a stalemate.

Why does The Odyssey start with the invocation of the muse? What does this tell about Homer and the book?

Asenaa,

First, what is a
Muse?

A Muse is a spirit of inspiration. The Ancient Greeks
of the Bronze Age believed that one of nine Muses inspired different forms of prose,
poetry, drama, rhetoric, or general writing. Thus, the invocation was a homage and
supplication to these deities in hopes of best capturing the topic of the Epic poem,
expressing the purpose of the narrative, but also incorporating mores and traditions
familiar to that specific audience. Moreover, this invocation elicits one of the major
themes of Homer's Epic poem: man and his relationship to a higher
power.

Second, who is this
Homer?

Homer was a blind story teller who traveled from
town to town reciting the great deeds of legendary heroes of the time. Remember, roughly
700BC did not have the common contrivances that we are privy to today: no television,
psp, ipod, iPhone, blackberries, tweets, etc. Homer was the entertainment of the time as
he regaled citizens of great warriors like Achilles in "The Illiad" and model Greek men
like Odysseus in "The Odyssey."In both Epic poems, Homer reveals the need to respect
higher powers.

Finally, why does he need that
invocation?

It seems ridiculous that a blind story teller
is able to recite a story so complicated and so lengthy. In short, Homer and "The
Odyssey" maintain the oral tradition. Through repetitive recitation, someone could hear
and hopefully retain the story enough to recite it to another audience. This invocation
contains a series of rhetorical techniques- writing techniques that strategically convey
the author's purpose and captures the audience's attention in various
ways.

Now, audiences are very impatient. Amongst many
literary techniques and rhetorical devices, Homer incorporates plot devices to try to
structure and organize these anachronistic events. Remember he most likely learned this
poem from listening and reciting, not writing it down. The invocation is similar to the
Prologue in Shakespeare's "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet." Both act as the coming
attractions for the audience. This invocation involves one of three important plot
devices: foreshadowing, which hints at important later events; it keeps listeners and
readers engaged. If audiences are not aware of what is to come and what to expect, they
lose focus. By the end of the invocation, audiences know the end of Odysseus's journey,
but they have no idea how it happened.

What is the Butterfly Effect?

The butterfly effect is a term used in Chaos Theory to
describe how tiny variations can affect giant systems, and complex systems, like weather
patterns. The term butterfly effect was applied in Chaos Theory to suggest that the wing
movements of a butterfly might have significant repercussions on wind strength and
movements throughout the weather systems of the world, and theoretically, could cause
tornadoes halfway around the world.

What the butterfly
effect seems to posit, is that the prediction of the behavior of any large system is
virtually impossible unless one could account for all tiny factors, which might have a
minute effect on the system. Thus large systems like weather remain impossible to
predict because there are too many unknown variables to
count.

The term "butterfly effect" is attributed to Edward
Norton Lorenz, a mathematician and meteorologist, who was one of the first proponents of
Chaos Theory. Though he had been working on the theory for some ten years, with the
principal question as to whether a seagulls’ wing movements changes the weather, he
changed to the more poetic butterfly in 1973.

In The Bible, who is "The Gospel of Luke" and "Acts" written to?

This is a very interesting question which many critics
have debated endlessly. What becomes clear, however, if you read their ideas, is that
the supposed recipient, whom Luke himself names in Luke: 1:4, Theophilus, is probably a
name given for a general believer (it means friend of God) rather than a specific
individual that both Acts and Luke were addressed
to.

Critics seem to agree that the themes and what is
included and excluded within Luke and Acts suggests that these two books were sent to a
Gentile audience, given the importance of Gentiles in these books. The fact that Luke
removes Jewish customs and language, in comparison with Matthew, for example, suggests
that they were an audience with little knowledge about Jewish culture. The audience is
familiar with the Old Testament in Greek, as Luke's frequent quotations are from the
Greek version of the Old Testament. The name, Theophilus, suggests that the audience is
already Christian.

Adding this altogether suggests that
Luke's intended audience would be god fearing Gentiles by birth but with interest in the
Jewish religion. Consider how Acts 10 for example includes prominent believers like
Cornelius who would encourage such people to become followers of
Jesus.

Write a book review of A Christmas Carol.

This is NOT written by me, all credits goes to
By href="http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Pascasio_JR_Felisilda">Pascasio JR Felisilda
from Ezinearticles.com

Long before J.K. Rowling,
J.R.R. Tolkien, and Lewis Carroll in the British literary scene, there was Charles
Dickens. He was a prolific writer who made references in his writing to child labor and
cruelty, social structure, political turmoil, poverty, etc. His most famous and (in my
opinion) his best work is the classic novel, "A Christmas Carol". His most iconic
characters are from that novel: Ebenezer Scrooge, Bob Cratchit, and Tiny
Tim.

Many people are familiar with various film adaptations
of "The Christmas Carol". It has to be the most popular Christmas film in history. Why
is "The Christmas Carol" so popular and appealing? It has to do a lot with the
sentimental story and remarkable transformation of Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge. He starts off
as a single-dimensional character- a character who was greedy for gain and negative.
There is a reason why he became that way. As we journey into Mr. Scrooge's past, we
understand (alongside with him) on why he became that way. As we develop compassion for
his, Mr. Scrooge also starts to develop compassion within him for other people. The way
Charles Dickens relays that story through the visitations of his former business
colleague, Marley, and three ghosts aspects of Christmases- past, present, and future.
In the original work, Charles Dickens directly references hell and punishment if
Ebenezer Scrooge remains the same greedy person. He had to transform to a better person
to serve mankind.

Upon reading the original version or even
watching the older classics starring Alastair Sims or Reginald Owens, it seems like a
ghost story that scares you more than it inspires you. But, when you experience the
fear, wonderment, and transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge, it is well worth reading or
watching the movie- though you will get a more impactful experience if you read the
original book.

"The Christmas Carol" should be read every
year to remind us and our family about the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of giving.
It is a good book to allow us to reflect on our own lives and what we did throughout the
year. There is something magical when you can experience "giving back" or charity the
way Ebenezer Scrooge was able to towards the end of the
book.

The creative genius and ingenuity of Charles Dickens
comes alive in "The Christmas Carol". Reading the book in its original unabridged format
is more impactful than using 3-D glasses and watching it on-screen. There is magic in
the words of the book.

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/5518190

Why is a death sentence decreed upon Frederick?

The answer to this can be found in Chapter 8.  Basically,
he is sentenced to death because he has cheated Napoleon and made him look like a fool. 
He will be boiled alive if captured, Napoleon says.

What
Frederick has done is to trick Napoleon when Napoleon sold him the wood pile left over
from Jones's time on the farm.  Napoleon insisted on being paid in cash rather than by a
check.  But it turned out that the cash that Frederick brought (and that Napoleon
proudly showed off the the animals) was fake.  Frederick had tricked
Napoleon.

What was the social background of 18th century society?

The society of Tom Jones's 18th century was one in which
classicism, elitism, new ways of community life, and social change was taking
place.

The aristocracy, particularly the nobility was held
on exaggerated high esteem, and they enjoy privileges that no typical citizen could ever
dream of. Those with money enjoyed VAST amounts of it, as well as land and properties.
This led to the often-witnessed fact that the upper classes were idle, ill-educated, and
snobbish to the core.

This, according to the Encyclopedia
Brittanica:

readability="16">

Nobility
The
major European monarchies had no standard of uniform law, money, or weights and
measures. Continental Europe had internal tolls that hampered the passage of goods.
Britain however, had no such tolls. In the 18th century, the nobility of that country
lived in the most magnificent luxury that the order had known. On the continent, the
nobility were wealthy. However, the noble was, to some extent, better off than a
prosperous peasant was. This is because the peasant tended to prosper with the
rest.

So basically Tom, the
foundling, was found by a clueless group of crass class and too much time to waste and
money to spend. This is where the mockery of the story is move
evident.

Who is Rachel in Wyndham's The Chrysalids, and what are her character traits and function?

Rachel is one of the secondary characters in The
Chrysalids. Rachel is Anne’s sister and both girls are
part of David’s circle of deviants. Since she is a minor character, she is not developed
by Wyndham and little can be deduced about her character traits. Petra says "does seem
to cry an awful lot, that girl," and Michael says she is brave and courageous. She loves
her sister and is genuinely distressed at Anne's suffering and naturally shaken by her
sister's final action. She is also sensible because she burns the note left behind by
Anne.

We know more about how Rachel functions in the novel,
which is largely to provide information. David explains things to her or she tells David
about people or incidents, like Mark or Anne’s troubles. In this function of information
bearer, Rachel has part in three big incidents. After Anne marries Alan and confesses
her powers to him as well as naming the others, Rachel is the conduit for all the
information about Anne's condition that David and the others receive after Alan is found
in the field. Rachel is even asked by David to try to deliver information to
Anne:

'You
must get a note to her somehow, Rachel,' [David] added. 'Word it carefully so that
she'll understand ... .'
'Very well. I'll try,' Rachel agreed doubtfully
....

Most importantly, on the
morning she goes to comfort Anne, she is the one who, in company with Anne's neighbor,
finds Anne lifeless in her bedroom. The note Anne left behind is assumed to be a suicide
note and pressed into Rachel's hand. In fact, it is a list exposing all their names.
Rachel's presence has saved them all from exposure (as did Uncle Axel's
action).

The second incident Rachel is importantly involved
in is the escape. Rachel did not escape with the others. As they are about to depart for
Zealand, it is Petra who reaches her for one last message because Rachel is out of range
for all but Petra. It is while Petra is communicating with Rachel that she sees Rachel's
between-think feelings. Despite David's admonition against noticing between-think, Petra
continually does so, thus suggesting through contact with Rachel the entrance of a new
more powerful paradigm that includes noticing between-think. During the same incident,
Rachel learns that Michael is declining to leave with the others for Zealand. He tells
Rachel through Petra (who reads Rachel's "sort of happy-crying" between-think) that he
will come to "fetch her out" (rescue her). Rachel, the information provider, provides
the final subtext of heroism, courage, and hope.

In the book The Giver how does the author foreshadow Jonas's gift?Author: Lois Lowry

Jonas’s gift is the capacity to see beyond.  This means he
can see things that are not part of the regular world of the community, such as color. 
He also has the ability to receive memories, which exist beyond the community.  We are
first told what this ability is during the Ceremony of Twelve when the Chief Elder
explains why Jonas was selected to be Receiver of
Memory.

 The author foreshadows this ability in the
incident with the apple.  Jonas notices the apple change, and takes it home to look at
it even if it is against the rules.  He looks at it, tosses it, and tries to figure out
what is different about it.  Jonas is seeing the color red, but he does not know it
yet.  He is reprimanded for taking the apple, but the incident with the apple
demonstrates to the elders that he really does have the capacity to see
beyond.

I am writing a composition for my English class and I don't understand what it means when it says to have a reference to literary elements.

If you had no idea what the literary elements
are - you are probably wondering which ones would be the easiest to
write about.  I would suggest, like Missy, you identify three.  In fact, her prompt is
perfect and will get you started on the right track immediately.  If you are only going
to go for three, they need to be three biggies.

1. 
CONFLICT: no such thing as a story without a conflict. 
Write about the main conflict that the story centers around, internal or
external.

2.  SYMBOLISM: is
there any person or object in the story that obviously is meant to be symbolic of a
deeper meaning?  (My guess is probably.)  Go with it.

3. 
THEME: every major work of literature has more than one. 
This should be easy.  (Read the thread posted below.)  This makes a great ending too
because essentially it allows you to wrap up with the meaning of the
story.

Then you can spice up the rest of the paper by
referring to the main character as the protagonist and his
enemy as the antagonist.  Some others found in every great
book include the climax and
resolution (plot elements).  If you want to talk about a
major character and any great changes he/she goes through, this is the element of
characterization.

What is the sum of the 12 terms of AP if a1+a5+a8+a12=24 ?

We'll write the sum of 12 terms of an arithmetical
progression:

S12 = (a1 +
a12)*12/2

We'll have to determine the sum a1 + a12, for
finding S12.

We also know, from enunciation, that
a1+a5+a8+a12=24.

According to the
rule:

(a1 + a8)/2 = (a5 +
a12)/2

Since the ratios are equal, we'll interchange the
terms:

a1 + a12 = a5 +
a8

We'll substitute a5 + a12 into the
sum:

a1 + a12 + a1 + a12 =
24

2(a1 + a12) = 24

a1 + a12 =
12

S12 =
12*12/2

The sum is: S12 =
72

Discuss the following statement: Animal Farm is written as a fable that allegorically exposes the nature of totalitarian regimes.

I think that there is much truth in the statement.  There
is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that Orwell's work is an allegory. 
Given the fact that he wanted to vault specific and targeted criticism towards Stalin
and the Soviet Union, he very well could not outwardly say what he believes and
articulate his thoughts.  The only way he could accomplish being able to have his voice
heard and have his work published is through a form that can be suggested is "not of
this world."  Accordingly, the allegory form allows Orwell to compose a work that both
meets the criteria of the style as well as offer up a scathing satire at the same time. 
When we examine the definition of an allegory, we can see that Orwell's work meets this
standard:

readability="7.2301255230126">

An allegory is a title="Figurative" href="../../topic/Figurative">figurative title="Mode" href="../../topic/Mode">mode of representation conveying a
meaning other than the literal. Allegory teaches a lesson through title="Symbolism" href="../../topic/Symbolism">symbolism. Allegory
communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic
representation.

In
this light, one sees that Orwell's work does fit the standard in that the animals and
their farm are meant to symbolically represent elements where a lesson is
taught.

Explain the literary device in this sentence: "The princess kissed the frog; he croaked."I believe my teacher said this was a pun. I also have to...

The literary device used in the sentence "the princess
kissed the frog; he croaked" is known
as anthropomorphism.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM
is the attribution of human characteristics to animals or
objects.

In the sentence "the
princess kissed the frog; he croaked,' the frog is an animal and the pronoun 'it' should
be used instead 'he,' the third person singular personal pronoun is used to refer to the
animal 'frog.'

The word 'croaked' could mean either 'to
make a low hoarse sound' or 'to die.' The pun results because it could either mean that
the frog 'made a low hoarse sound' as soon as the princess kissed it or it could mean
that the frog 'died' as soon as the princess kissed it.

A
semicolon is used to connect two independent clauses. Independent clauses are clauses
which make complete sense on their own. In this sentence the two independent clauses
'the princess kissed the frog' and 'he croaked' make complete sense on their own and are
connected  by a semicolon.

The humour results because of
the punning on the meaning of the word 'croaked' and also because of the use of the
semicolon. The semicolon unlike the comma creates a lot of anticipation. In the fairy
tale the frog turns into a handsome prince as soon as it is kissed by the princess. But
in this sentence just as the reader conventionally expects the frog to turn into a
prince, it does not turn into a prince but it either makes a hoarse sound or it dies.
 The humour results because just as the reader pauses at the semicolon and expects the
conventional result his expectations are not fulfilled.

Why did Sheila agree to go out with the boy even though she isn't interested in him in "The Bass, the River, and Sheila Mant?"Why did Sheila agree...

Sheila is essentially using the boy when she agrees to go
out with him. She is a self-absorbed young lady, as is evidenced by the way she talks
only about herself on the canoe ride to the dance, and, as she tells the boy straight
out,

"I'm
playing outfield...I don't like the responsibility of having a
base."

Although she is
talking about baseball, her words make the game a metaphor for the way she lives her
life. Sheila Mant is out to have a good time, and it really doesn't matter to her whom
she is with, as long as she gets what she wants at any given moment. When the boy asks
Sheila if she wants to go with him to the dance, she really doesn't "seem to see (him)
at all." Her only response is to ask if he has a car, and when she asks him this
question, she still does not even look up at him.

Sheila's
real motivation for wanting to go to the concert becomes evident when she nonchalantly
tells the boy that "Eric Caswell's going to be there" as he paddles the canoe towards
their destination. Sheila is interested in Eric, and she is basically using the boy as a
means to an end - to get her to the dance so that she can see this other guy. Totally
oblivious to the sacrifice the boy has made for her, she achieves her objective, and
gets Eric Caswell to take her home. It matters little to Sheila how the boy feels; other
than the short moment when she finally actually looks at him and tells him he's "a funny
kid," she gives him little consideration, so absorbed is she in her own
agenda.

In "Taking Leave of a Friend" by Ezra Pound, explain what emotions are evoked.I must explain what emotions are evoked and how the nature images are...

Ezra Pound uses the classic technique of the evocative
power of sounds in his scheme (a kind of figure of speech) for evoking emotion in
"Taking Leave of a Friend." The image of "Blue mountain" and "White river" evoke a slow
contemplative feeling that is turned suddenly into a sad emotion when the next line
requires making "separation." The vowels of the first two lines enhance the imagery
evoked by the words describing nature because they are all round vowels of prolonged
duration.

These come into conflict with the sorrow evoking
third line with its more closed vowels and harsh sounding /t k h s
p/ consonants. The fourth line of the first quatrain (four lines) evokes a
sense of desolation by the inclusion of the word "dead." Change any of these elements,
and a different emotion altogether may be evoked. The second quatrain evokes a feeling
of anxiety partly because the vowels scattered between harsh consonants give an
unsettled feeling to the nature imagery of a "wide cloud" and the parting of the sun at
sunset.

What is the "elect"?

When we use the word "elect" we are often referring to a
person who has recently been elected to an office, whether it be locally or at the state
or federal level. They are referred to as the elect in the time between when they win an
election and when they actually take office. Thus, right now, all of the new senators
and legislators who are about take office in January 2011 after the November 2010
elections are called Senator Elect Smith (or whatever their last names
are).

There are many forms of the word elect. The way you
refer to it in your question suggests this form of the word above that I have suggested
which is a noun. To elect someone would be to vote for them with is an action and thus a
verb. The electorate are those who vote. The election is the act (another noun) or event
held which allows voters to cast their ballots.

What are three prejudices found in both To Kill a Mockingbird and Flowers for Algernon?In the two books, To Kill a Mockingbird and Flowers for...

The first prejudice that I would say unites both novels is
that against those who are intellectually challenged. Charlie with his IQ  of 70 and Boo
Radley with his isolation and lack of communication are both figures of derision and
ridicule in society and are cruelly regarded by
others.

Another prejudice I would see is that regarding sex
drive and sexual activity. Tom Robinson is gauged in the novel ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’
as being responsible for ravaging Mayella Ewell. At the time it was considered that
black men had tremendous sexual urges. The possibility that Mayella may have been
attempting to initiate physical contact was almost impossible to conceive. Similarly,
Charlie was repressed by his mother who feared that as he was of subnormal intelligence
he may seek to abuse his ‘normal ‘sister.

A final prejudice
would be the suspicion towards change in others. When Boo Radley is trying to
communicate positively with th children through the gifts in the knot-hole, his family
are swift to prevent this dialogue.  When Charlie becomes increasingly more intelligent,
his co-workers are so uncomfortable that the petition for his
dismissal.

I need to find some quotes for understanding others theme. What should I be looking at to help me find more quotes?

I'll be happy to provide you with a
few.

"If you
can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks.
You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of
view--until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."  (Atticus' advice, Chapter
3)

readability="8">

"People in their right minds never take pride in
their talents," said Miss Maudie.  (Concerning Atticus' marksmanship, Chapter
10)

readability="10">

"Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music
for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, they don't nest in corncribs, they
don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a
mockingbird."  (Miss Maudie, Chapter
10)

readability="14">

"Jem, see if you can stand in Bob Ewell's shoes
a minute. 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 a comeback, his kind always does. So if
spitting in my face and threatening me saved Mayella 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
household of children out there."  (Atticus explaining Bob's spitting in his face,
Chapter 23)

Discuss the impact of French Revolution on Romantics.Only the impacts.

Although the Romantics, in particular - the British poets
(Keats, Byron, Wordsworth, Blake, Shelley) did not believe themselves to be a 'Romantic
movement,' they were united in support for the French Revolution. The Romantics did hold
a lot of the same motivations (imagination and freedom of the individual) and because
they so believed in the freedom of the individual, they considered themselves as
different artists within a general ideology which was based on freedom, emotion, and
imagination of the individual. Since the French Revolution was an international
statement of displacing monarchy in favor of a more democratic (and in some cases,
socialist) system, they of course praised this move because the individual has more
power in those systems; particularly the democratic. Unfortunately the French Revolution
resulted in a dictatorship by 1799 which just replaced one owning class (aristocracy)
with another (military dictatorship). Eventually, Marxists would see this is as well
(Karl Marx writing around 1850). The Romantics did not like the way the revolution
turned out, but they did praise the general statement it made; a ‘beginning of the end’
of the inescapable hierarchies/oppression of the lower classes by monarchist rule. So,
despite the revolution’s problems, the end result was a progression in favor of
democracy and individualism; ideologically and in terms of
socio-economics.

I was just wondering: why is it considered a bad luck to say " Macbeth" in Shakespeare's Macbeth?

It's not actually bad luck to say "Macbeth" during a
production of the work.  Superstition has it that it is bad luck to refer to the play by
name; hence those who refer to "the Scottish play" or other
phrases.

The reasoning behind the superstition is that
Shakespeare used actual witches spells in the play, with the result being that the
witches of his day cursed the play.  As a result of the curse, productions of that play
may be doomed if specifically named inside the theater, or performers involved in the
production may be harmed.

In order to prevent the curse
from coming to pass, those who are worried about the superstition might go through
rituals involving leaving the building, spinning three times in place, spitting over
one's shoulder, and uttering an obscenity.

What is Piggy's response when Jack says Piggy didn't hunt?This is a question I got stuck on and I searched for the answer but nothing came up....

In Chapter Four of Lord of the Flies,
this question of Piggy's comes after pivotal action in the plot of Golding's narrative. 
For, while Jack and the older boys hunt for a pig, a ship has passed without knowing
anyone is on the island because the signal fire has gone out.  Enraged at the careless
irresponsibility of the boys, Ralph accuses Jack with costing their rescue because he
took them from their task of building the fire.  And, when Piggy joins in the scolding,
the "wails of agreement from some of the hunters, drove Jack to violence"; he smack's
Piggy's head, knocking off his glasses and breaking one of the
lenses.

Piggy
grabbed and put on the glasses.  He looked malevolently at
Jack.

Already appearing in a
bad light with the others for allowing the fire to go out, Jack is further humiliated
when Ralph tells him that knocking over Piggy is "a dirty
trick." 

So
Ralph asserted his chieftainship....Jack was powerless and raged without knowing
why.

In an act of defiance,
when the boys go to relight the fire, Jack goes to Piggy and takes the glasses from
him: 

Not even
Ralph knew how a link between him and Jack had been snapped and fastened
elsewhere.

This newly created
division between Ralph and Piggy and Jack is reflected in Jack's telling Piggy that he
cannot have any meat.  Golding writes that Jack neglects to give Piggy meat just to
leave him in doubt until Piggy asks and makes his omission
public:

Jack
had meant to leave him in doubt, as an assertion of power;
but Piggy by advertising his omission made more cruelty
necessary.....Numberless and inexpressible frustrations combined to make
his rage elemental and
awe-inspiring.

It is in his
actions towards Piggy that the reader discerns Jack emergence as a savage force in
conflict with the rational Piggy who in his
response explains to Jack why he wants meat:  "There isn't more than a
ha'porth of meat in a
crab." 

Significantly, Piggy and Ralph will soon only have
a "ha'porth," half portion of the leadership on the island.  Unwittingly, then, Piggy
has established his position of the island with his own response.  This question, "What
is Piggy's response when Jack tells him, 'You didn't hunt'? is, indeed, intrinsic to the
understanding of the novel's theme and characters as suggested by chocolate 975's tags
below the
post.

Is there some way that protest against a war even during a time of war-can be considered patriotic? If yes give examples of how it can be patriotic.

What is patriotic and what is unpatriotic is very much a
subjective judgement. Although in periods of war there is a kind of surge in intolerance
among government as well as general public towards anything which appears to be even
slightly opposed to, or critical of, the official government action. Many a times such
patriotic feelings are based more on national pride than long term national interests.
Real criteria of patriotism is not just what people at a particular time think to be
patriotic, but the intention of the person in acting in a particular way. If a person is
acting with the objective of securing good of the country, he or she is definitely
patriotic, irrespective of what others may think about him or
her.

As a matter of fact, the person protesting against war
during war time, with the intention of good of the country, is likely to be much more
patriotic than the millions of people who protest against war in time of peace. A person
protesting against war in war time risks a lot to secure national interest. While
marches in protest against war during peace time may be doing this just as way of
bringing exciting in life. Majority of such people may back out of such protest at the
slightest hint of major personal risk.

In Romeo and Juliet, how does Shakespeare use dramatic irony in Act 2 Scene 2 (the balcony scene)?

This is a great question! Remember the definition of
dramatic irony: dramatic irony is defined as when someone on the stage and/or the
audience knows something that one or several of the other characters do not. One of the
essential elements of dramatic irony in this play over all is of course the tragic end,
when we know that Juliet is just about to wake up, but Romeo doesn't, and goes on
killing himself, just before Juliet revives.

However, when
we think about dramatic irony in this famous scene, one place to start is towards the
beginning. Remember that Romeo and Juliet have just had rather a sudden and quick
meeting before Juliet is dragged away. Therefore Romeo is left wanting to have some
confirmation of what he is experiencing and that he is not
dreaming.

He receives this confirmation in the form of
Juliet appearing on the balcony and addressing "Romeo," ironically not knowing that he
is actually there to hear every word. Listen to what she
says:

O
Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and
refuse thy name;

Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my
love,

And I'll no longer be a
Capulet.

This is enough to
give Romeo the confirmation that his feelings are mutual and shared by Juliet, and he
ponders in an aside whether he should reveal his presence at this stage or wait to hear
more. Therefore this is dramatic irony because we know that Romeo is actually there,
hearing every word that Juliet is actually addressing to Romeo, though she doesn't know
where he is.

Who is the speaker in the poem "For My Mother (May I Inherit Half Her Strength)" by Lorna Goodison?

The speaker in the poem "For My Mother (May I Inherit Half
Her Strength)" by Lorna Goodison is the daughter of the woman being eulogized, her
mother. The daughter tells her mother's story from the love at first sight with a
cricket player come up to her town for a cricket match. He, dressed in blazer and serge
pants and she, standing by the oleander fell in love at first sight. He never played
cricket that day.

The daughter goes on to chronicle her
mother's life of sacrifice and hardship as she raised nine children, while he had a
special female "friend." The daughter tells of her father's funeral, also attended by
the "friend," and of how her mother sewed black dresses for all the women in the family
and buried her husband of nine children with a straight-backed dignified walk and dry
eyes.

Finally, the daughter tells how one day, while
peeling bananas, her mother realized that for one time, she didn't have to be brave and
cried--she cried for herself and for the husband she loved.

In The Drunkard by Frank O' Connor, who narrates this story?

The story is narrated by the central character, Larry
Delaney, who is actually thinking back on a particular incident from his childhood.  The
fact that he is an adult is important because of the distance it gives him from the
event as well as the perspective he is likely to have gained as an adult.  The incident
would have been confusing at best had he tried to narrate it at the time as a young
child.  It also allows Larry to reflect back on the incident as well as the rest of his
Father's life to make sure that the story doesn't end in a sickly sweet happily ever
after but, as most stories do, with further downfalls and incidents not
described.

In chapter 12 of Lord of the Flies, Ralph confesses he was in charge but then realizes he was not. Who or what really is?

Ralph says he is in charge because that was his designated
role. Throughout the novel, we saw his loss of control to Jack and the savage boys.
However, in truth Ralph knew who or what was really in control over the last few days,
and he knew it in deepest part of his being:

readability="14">

And in the middle of them, with filthy body,
matted hair, and unwiped nose, Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of
man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called
Piggy.

Each of these concepts
was a form of the beast within. Innocence will always come to an end. According to
Golding, man does have a dark heart. Finally, truth is often killed as we saw evidenced
through both the characters Simon and Piggy. These concepts that we could consider in
charge might easily be labeled the evil of man, corruption of man, or selfishness of
man.

How does luck play a role in the book Night? How does luck play a role in the book Night or Maus 1&2? Can you please give examples and quotes....

Asking how does luck play a role in
Night is asking how did luck play a roll in who survived the
Holocaust.  With as many people who went through "The Selection" at concentration camps
every day, I think it could be argued that luck played a HUGE role.  Sure there were
certain criteria SS Officers were perportedly looking for as they sent men and women to
the left or to the right, but how in the world could the criteria be at all fool-proof. 
Due to the sheer masses, either luck, fate, or faith had to have something to do with
those selected to continue working vs. those selected for the gas
chambers.

Consider Elie's experience in the hospital.  He
is advised that the Russian front is coming closer, and to get out of the hospital as
quickly as possible, as everyone left would be exterminated.  Elie and his father choose
to leave as the decision looks like the only chance they have of survival.  It turned
out, the Russians arrived earlier than expected and everyone left in the hospital was
spared.  Lucky for those who were even sicker than Elie and could not
leave.

What is the difference between a simile and a metaphor?

Similes and metaphors are often confused with one another
as they are both forms of comparison and are similar.

A
simile means to be like something. When people are conveying a
message to someone else they often use similes to help the other person understand what
it is they are saying. For example, someone may ask you how your trip to the dentist
was. You may respond that you feel like a beaten up punching bag.
This is an example of a simile. 

A metaphor takes it a step
further. Instead of saying something is like another, we say
it is another. "An education is the passport
to your future" is an example of a metaphor. You are not saying it is like
a passport, but it is a
passport.

Here are some more
examples:

Examples
of
Simile:

• She
  swins like a fish.


• He's
  as hairy as a gorilla.


• Peter
  laughs like a hyena.


• Mr. John is as
  wise as an owl.
  

Examples
of Metaphor:

• He
  was a tornado, blasting his way through the opposing team.
  


• He was a lion in the fight.
  


• The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.
  

In this book, is innocence preserved or is it replaced by bitter experience?Is the mockingbird killed after all?

I think that, in some ways, innocence is both preserved
and replaced by bitter experience in this novel. The lesson that an adult Scout is
trying to teach by telling her story is one of the importance of innocence. However, it
is a concept that cannot be fully understood or appreciated without the wisdom that
comes fro experience. To Scout, innocence was a given until she experienced the outcomes
of the events of that summer. Seeing a group of men that she knew from the town ready to
harm Atticus if he did not allow them to enter the jail, presumably to take and lynch
Tom Robinson, gave her a first glimpse at the evil that lies in the hearts of all men.
The outcome of the trial, which in her childhood wisdom she knew to be unfair, only
serves to further that loss of innocence and respect for humanity. However, she has
tempering influences as well. The scene when Atticus must kill the rabid dog, for
instance, reminds her that some things that may not be pleasant are necessary, but that
we must not hope or wish to be put into those situations. Boo Radley, as well, is an
influence on her. He also acts as is needed to protect the children, but he is a simple
man who has kept his own innocence through ignorance. It is these that provide her with
the wisdom that she needs to maintain her appreciation and respect for innocence and to
strive to teach those values to others through her narrative.

In The Broken Estate, what is Woods saying about the nature of God & the nature of Scripture in relation to the Book of Job in Scripture?Mr. Wood...

In these two quotes from The Broken
Estate, Wood is defining Judaeo-Christian Scripture as being novel-like in
its best influence. Based on the quotation, Wood seems a proponent of an interpretation
of the Book of Job that is in some manner "an argument against
Himself [God]," an interpretation that highly arguable. He then asserts God "has no
negative capability," which is at best an unusual and broad general statement.
Magill’s Literary Annual 1991-2005 asserts that Wood has a tendency
toward "flat and categorical statements that may not always be valid." God is usually
defined by his positive attributes of love, merciful lovingkindness, etc, but he is also
defined by his actions as recorded in the "novel-like" record of Scripture, actions like
the throwing Jonah into the maw of a whale, which may justly be understood as showing
"negative capability" and therefore contradicting the claim that God "has no negative
capability."

If it is argued that the Book of
Job is "such an argument against" God because Job is made to suffer, his
friends torment him and accuse him falsely, and God reveals himself in the wrath of a
whirlwind (an argument which disregards the prologue of the Book), then the meaning of
"God could not have written a novel-like story that was such an argument against
Himself...He does not have negative capability" can be understood in reference to the
tendency to define God by his attributes alone, as mentioned above. If God is that which
his positive attributes attest, then as a God of positive attributes, God could not have
written / caused to be written / inspired to be written a "novel-like" story that
reveals negative qualities. The relevance of such an argument would be the assertion
that therefore Judaeo-Christian Scripture is confirmed as having a "novel-like effect
[of] these writings have on our hearts" without divine inspiration and without any
validity to an opposing assertion that "they [Scriptures] are supernatural and
infallible."