If x + 3y = 8 and 4x – 7y = 1, what is the value of x + y?

We have the two equations x + 3y = 8 and 4x – 7y = 1. We
can see that it is not possible to multiply the equations by any number and add or
subtract them to achieve a common coefficient for x and y that can be canceled to yield
the value of x+y.

So, let’s find x and y and use that to
determine their sum.

We have x + 3y =
8

=> x = 8 –
3y

substitute this in 4x – 7y =
1

=> 4(8 – 3y) – 7y =
1

=> 32 – 12y – 7y =
1

=> -19y =
-31

=> y = 31/19

x = 8
– 3*(31/19)

=> x =
59/19

The sum x + y = 31/19 + 59/19 =
90/19

What are five good topics or themes in A Raisin in the Sun?

Hansberry's work is a very provocative one and much comes
out of it.  I think that one of the most powerful themes in the work is the discussion
of forms of social stratification in modern society.  The play explores issues of race,
class, gender, as well as age as elements that impact the barriers that individuals face
in society.  Through the different characters, we can see each of these dynamics
unfold.  At the same time, I think that another element that comes out is the definition
of the American Dream.  The notion of upward mobility is something that is examined as a
part of the American Dream and what it means to be "successful."  The Younger family is
unique in that their idea of accomplishing the American Dream of moving into Clybourne
Park is also concurrent with them becoming more close as a family.  The play forces us
to ponder the flip side to this equation.  Hansberry is wise enough to make the reader
question what would happen if a family had to choose one of the elements over the other
and the difficulties that are posed in such a setting.  I think that there is another
topic brought out in the play as to whether it is a work of comedy or tragedy.  In this
light, one can make a case for the work to be comedic in that the Younger family's
struggles are validated, and much like the plant, they will grow.  Yet, there can be a
tragic condition offered in that there are many more families that do not experience the
success of the Youngers.  For these families, will their dreams become "a heavy load?" 
I think that this becomes another topic that arises from the
drama.

What are two specific example of the difference in language between scene 1 and scene 2 in Midsummer Night's Dream?

The main language difference between the first two scenes
of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream is that the first is
written in verse and the second in prose.

Scene 1 contains
this speech of Hippolyta's:

readability="10">

Four days will quickly steep
themselves in night,/Four nights will quickly dream away the time;/And then the moon,
like to a silver bow/New-bent in heaven, shall behold the night/Of our solemnities.
(lines 6-10)

Her
language is a poetic one, rich in similes and
personification.

Scene 2 has these words of Peter
Quince's:

readability="15">

But masters, here are your parts; and
I am to entreat you, request you, and desire you to con them by tomorrow night; and meet
me in the palace wood, a mile without the town, by moonlight.  There will we rehearse;
for if we meet in the city, we shall be dogged with company, and our devices known.
(lines 88-94)

His
directions to his fellow thespians are purely prosaic, a mere list of
instructions.

Scene 1 (lines 134-140) boasts this exchange
between Lysander and Hermia:

readability="15">

Lysander:  The course of true love
never did run smooth;/But either it was different in blood
-

Hermia:  O cross!  too high to be
enthralled to low.

Lysander:  Or else
misgraffed in respect of years -

Hermia: 
O spite! too old to be engaged to
young.

Lysander:   Or else it stood
upon the choice of friends -

Hermia: 
O hell! to choose love by another's
eyes.

Lysander's
and Hermia's lines romantically intertwine, as if being spoken by one empathetic voice
full of elegance and symmetry.

Scene 2 (lines 36-42) has
this dialogue between Quince and Flute:

readability="19">

Quince:  Francis Flute the
bellows-mender.

Flute:  Here, Peter
Quince.

Quince:  Flute, you must take
Thisby on you.

Flute:  What is
Thisby?  a wand'ring knight?

Quince: 
It is the lady that Pyramus must
love.

Flute:  Nay, faith, let me not
play a woman.  I have a beard
coming.

The
back-and-forth between these two "rude mechanicals" is characteristic of the language of
the scene as a whole: earthy and straight-forward.  There are no frills
here.

A second difference in the styles of the two scenes
is in the length of the lines.  In scene 1, the characters, for the most part, make long
rhetorical speeches.  Egeus's speech to Theseus (lines 22-45) is a good example, as are
Lysander's (lines 99-110) and Helena's soliloquy (lines 226-251).  In scene 2, the
characters -- with the occasional exception of the egotistical Bottom -- speak to each
other in relatively short exchanges, (lines 1-20, for
example).

Shakespeare continues this contrast in styles --
poetry for the lovers, prose for the laborers -- throughout the play, until the two
linguistic worlds collide in the final scene.  Ironically, in this last scene (V, 1),
the "mechanicals" get to speak the poetry (albeit bad poetry), and
the lovers speak primarily in prose.

Why did the United States shift from expanding internally towards foreign expansion in the late 1800s and early 1900s?

There are at least two reasons for
this.

First of all, the United States had pretty much run
out of room for "internal" expansion by the late 1800s.  The only "internal" expansion
that could have happened after that would have been at the expense of Canada or Mexico. 
The US was never going to get either of those peacefully and it was not going to fight
wars against established countries to take parts of their territory at this point in
history.

Second, the places that the US took outside the
continental US were not major established countries.  They were colonies of other
countries (Puerto Rico, the Philippines) or very little countries (Hawaii, parts of
Samoa).  Therefore, they would not get into any trouble with other countries if they
took these places.  Taking Hawaii was much less controversial in the international
community than taking Mexico would have been.

Relate the following statement to Miller's The Crucible: Justice is best determined in a court of law.

I think Miller's work demonstrates how true the statement
actually is.  One of the most profound elements that emerges from the drama is the idea
that guilt is decided in the court of public opinion or through political manipulation. 
Miller's work is a testament to the importance of courts of law, meeting evidentiary
burdens, and ensuring fairness in the judicial process as a part of determining
justice.  When Salem devolves into a setting where accusations and political
manipulation results in the deliberation of justice, there can be no honest pursuit of
the end.  When social and political ends that serve individual self interest are
critical elements in determining justice, I think that Miller's drama highlights that
there can be no justice.  For Miller, the legal setting where checks and balances, the
opportunity to be heard in a legal sense, as well as the basic idea of institutional
configurations where fairness is evident, can only be where justice is
achieved.

In Paulo Coelho's book, The Alchemist, how does the crystal merchant's explanation for not taking the pilgrimage to Mecca make sense?

In Paulo Coelho's book, The
Alchemist, the crystal merchant's explanation for not taking the pilgrimage
to Mecca makes sense to the boy.

The crystal merchant, who
has hired the boy in hopes of selling more crystal, describes what the Prophet teaches
in the Koran.

readability="8">

The fifth obligation of every Muslim is a
pilgrimage. We are obliged, at least once in our lives, to visit the holy city of
Mecca.

The merchant shares
that he never went on the pilgrimage because he could never trust his crystal in someone
else's care. When the boy asks the merchant why he does not go now, after thirty years
of working, the merchant explains that the idea of Mecca is what
keeps him moving forward, that without the dream, he'd have no reason for living. He
also notes that if he went to Mecca, he might be disappointed, so he just dreams about
it instead.

As time goes by, and the boy earns more money,
he dreams of getting his sheep back. That has become his new dream.
The boy understands:

readability="5">

...because Egypt was now just as distant a dream
for him as Mecca for the
merchant.

In essence, both
the crystal merchant and the boy have lost their hope and their faith in their dreams.
It is because the boy has lost his dream of ever reaching Egypt that the merchant's
reasons for not traveling to Mecca make sense to him.

Please help me understand the poem called "my busconductor."I find it difficult to understand the poem "my busconductor", here is the poem: My...

"My Bus Conductor" is a poem by Roger McGough, a
contemporary poet who first gained recognition through a book called The
Mersey Sound, in 1967.

The poem is about a bus
conductor (in America we would call him a "bus driver") who knows that he will not live
much longer due to a diseased kidney. 

Because he knows
that his days are numbered, he begins to value small, everyday
objects:

Each
bus ticket
takes on now a different shape
and texture.
He
holds a ninepenny single
as if it were a
rose.

His behavior toward
other people also changes.  He no longer flirts with female passengers, and he is more
understanding of the poor and downtrodden:

readability="6">

His thin lips
have no quips

for fat factory girls
and he ignores
the drunk who
snores
and the oldman who talks to
himself.

Now that he is about
to leave the world, everything looks different to
him:

The same
old streets look different now
more distinct
as through new
glasses.
And the sky
was it ever so
blue?

In summary, the poem is
about people who look at the world differently when they know they will soon be leaving
it.  Perhaps it is asking us to try to look at the world differently even if we think we
still have a long time left to live.