To what extent were the Europeans more technologically advanced than the indigenous people of the Caribbean and Mexico?

The Spanish conquerors had steel swords, lances, daggers, helmets, and armor as well as horses, guns, and canons. While guns and cannons were slow and rather primitive, gunpowder explosions created a great psychological effect. The Spaniards had ships, maps, and compasses, while the Native Americans had much smaller boats and relied on human memory for their navigation.
The Spanish were also able to exchange information by means of writing; they could request and receive more soldiers and supplies from the Spanish colonial administrators. Printed reports about the conquests and the acquisition of new riches in Mexico and Peru attracted a stream of European colonial settlers. The reports also facilitated new investments in colonial enterprises from European bankers, such as the Fugger family.
Soon the gold and silver mines that settlers created in Mexico and Peru provided rich rewards and enabled Spain to finance its colonial administration and engage in global trade across the oceans as Spanish coins minted in America became a world currency.

What does Lyddie and Brigid's encounter in Chapter 21 tell you about the worker's rights in the mills?

Chapter 21 isn't the only chapter that shows how Lyddie and the other girls have next to no rights whatsoever. The girls on the factory floor are pushed hard. The machines work at blindly fast paces, and girls work multiple machines. If a girl gets hurt, she is just replaced like any other interchangeable part. This treats the girls like mere objects, and that is what chapter 21 also shows readers; however, this time the chapter shows readers that men like Marsden treat the girls like sexual objects. The huge problem for the girls back then was that they had no recourse. Any of the girls could complain, but by doing so they risk their job. Additionally, the girls risk being blacklisted and never allowed to work a factory again. This means that the girls have to take whatever conditions are given to them regardless of how grossly inappropriate it is. Lyddie does stand up to Marsden and saves Brigid, but Lyddie is fired because of it. It's a devastating moment for readers. Lyddie does get back at Marsden, but she has to do it through blackmail. She writes up two copies of the same letter. She gives one to Brigid and one to Mr. Marsden. The letters are written to Mrs. Marsden and explain what her husband has been doing. Lyddie told Brigid to mail the letter if Mr. Marsden ever steps out of line again.

Good night, Mr. Marsden. I hope you sleep easy—before you die.

In Chapter 21 Lyddie catches the overseer Mr. Marsden sexually harassing Brigid, just as he'd previously done to her. Lyddie's become quite close to Brigid, and hates to see her friend being treated so appallingly. So she picks up a bucket and attacks Marsden. Lyddie may have successfully stopped Marsden from abusing Brigid—for now, at any rate—but she's immediately fired for standing up to a bully.
This whole tawdry episode speaks volumes about how the women are treated at the factory. They're forced to perform hard, demanding work for long hours and little pay. The conditions on the whole are pretty dreadful. In such an exploitative environment, it's no surprise that a serial predator like Marsden thinks he has the right to force himself on any woman that takes his fancy. He knows that even if one of the workers should complain about his behavior, absolutely nothing will be done about it. He won't be the one to get into trouble; on the contrary, it'll be the complainant who'll risk losing her job, or anyone else who stands up to him. And so it proves with Lyddie.

What are feminist perspectives on Jane Eyre?

There are many different feminist perspectives one could explore in relation to Jane Eyre. One of the more interesting perspectives, and at the same time one of the more paradoxical, concerns Jane's behavior toward Mr. Rochester. The two are deeply in love with each other, yet cannot be together so long as Rochester is still married to his criminally-insane wife. Rochester tries to get around this little difficulty by effectively offering to make Jane his concubine—essentially a mistress. Yet Jane instinctively rebels against such a notion. She desperately wants to be with Rochester, but not that desperately. So she firmly rejects his offer to live in sin, as it used to be called.
Jane's rejection could be construed in feminist terms, in that as a woman she's challenging the second-class status in society to which she'd be reduced if Mr. Rochester's sordid little arrangement ever came to fruition. It's bad enough that, as a woman in Regency England, she's already regarded as inferior. But agreeing to live in adultery with Rochester would lower her even further in the eyes of society.
Yet herein lies the paradox. Jane is asserting herself against the sexual desires of a man, but at the same time choosing to follow the dictates of social convention, with its very rigid notions of propriety. This raises an interesting question: is it a feminist act for a woman freely to choose to follow an established social system that keeps her in a state of subjection?

Why was Henry VIII important to the Middle Ages?

Henry VIII was an important transitional figure between the Middle Ages and the early modern period. In some respects, he helped to bring the Middle Ages to a close. He did this primarily by challenging the temporal and spiritual power of the Catholic Church. Though initially hostile to the Reformation, Henry subsequently defied the Church as it refused to grant him a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Although what became known as the Henrician Reformation in England wasn't as theologically radical as similar movements on the continent, it did nonetheless represent a major shift in the balance of power between secular and religious authorities in Europe.
Henry's break with Rome enshrined a principle that was to become important throughout Europe, and not just in Protestant countries: the ruler of a given territory had the right to determine the religious affiliations of his or her subjects. In England, Henry made himself Supreme Head of the national Church. Among other things, this gave him the right to confiscate Church lands and wealth, to decide what religious doctrines could be taught and preached, and to authorize the publication of the only Bible permitted to be read by his subjects, the so-called Great Bible of 1539.
Henry can also be seen as an important figure in the rise of what would later become known as nationalism. The founding of the Church of England was an important assertion of English national identity. This helped to contribute to the fracturing of what the Middle Ages understood as Christendom—a cultural, political and religious unity in Western Europe that had existed for centuries.
Henry's estrangement from the Catholic Church helped to establish the nation state as the primary unit of political sovereignty. Integral to this development was the increased prominence and prestige of the vernacular, which gradually began to replace Latin as the lingua franca, or common language, of learning, especially in relation to Bible translations. In fact, the Great Bible of 1539, authorized as we've already seen by Henry VIII himself, was the first such edition to be written in English, drawing extensively on the work of the renowned biblical scholar (and executed heretic) William Tyndale. 

How is Meimei's relationship with her mother like a game of chess?

“Rules of the Game” by Amy Tan is a short story narrated by a young Chinese-American girl named Waverly Jong, known to her family as Meimei. Meimei, who becomes an excellent chess player, is in a constant power struggle with her mother. Her mother is extremely strict as she tries to teach Chinese cultural values to her children.
As Meimei’s mother consistently attempts to influence her daughter, Meimei responds by trying to resist her mother’s control. This mother-daughter conflict is where we can see a parallel to the game of chess. Chess is a game of strategy, and it is very similar to war. Because of the confidence and strategic skills she gained from playing chess, Meimei asserts her dominance in the relationship for the first time.
At the end of the story, Meimei’s narration directly compares her mother to a chess opponent. She says:

In my head, I saw a chessboard with sixty-four black and white squares. Opposite me was my opponent, two angry black slits. She wore a triumphant smile. "Strongest wind cannot be seen," she said.
Her black men advanced across the plane, slowly marching to each successive level as a single unit. My white pieces screamed as they scurried and fell off the board one by one. As her men drew closer to my edge, I felt myself growing light. I rose up into the air and flew out the window. Higher and higher, above the alley, over the tops of tiled roofs, where I was gathered up by the wind and pushed up toward the night sky until everything below me disappeared and I was alone.
I closed my eyes and pondered my next move.

The story ends that way, with the reader in suspense about who wins the chess match and who wins the battle between mother and daughter.

There are many interesting similarities between chess and real life in “Rules of the Game.” In chess, the white piece always moves first. Symbolically, this could represent the idea in "Rules of the Game" that Chinese culture is considered inferior to the white culture. The Christmas party scene, in which Meimei’s family is given the used chess set but cannot complain, is a good example of this. In chess, the queen is the most powerful piece and can move in any direction as long as it represents a straight line. In the story, she is represented by Meimei’s mother, who has all the power. Meimei, then, is the pawn. In chess, a pawn can only move forward one square at a time, not backwards, and the pawn can only capture diagonally. This is akin to Meimei, who is controlled by her mother and only has a limited number of moves available to her.
Interestingly, a pawn in chess, if it reaches the other side of the board, can be promoted to any other piece, and often a pawn is promoted to queen. This reflects the idea in the story that Meimei, once she becomes a chess champion, believes she has power over everyone in the family. She feels equal to her mother. In the end, however, Meimei chooses to make a move a pawn cannot make by choosing the power play of disrespecting her mother and running away. Her mother, who the family considers the most powerful member of the family, wins by forcing the family to ignore Meimei when she comes home. Meimei may have had the advantage of understanding the “white” world and making the first move, but in the end, her mother, the black queen, won the game.

How do I write an analysis and thesis for John Updike's "Dog's Death"?

Updike's poem "Dog's Death" is about the unseen hurts that creatures we love walk around with and that they cannot survive even though we love them. That is a thesis about the poem. After his puppy dies, the narrator finds out that the dog had been walking around with a ruptured liver. All the time that the family was trying to encourage the puppy to follow rules, such as using newspapers to go to the bathroom and praising her with the words "good dog," the dog was carrying around an injury, perhaps from a brush with a car or a kick, that will kill her. After the dog dies, the family realizes she really was a good dog and had been suffering with diarrhea but still dragged herself over to use the newspaper. Walking around with this unseen injury, she tried to be a good dog until the end of her life. The narrator says, "Though surrounded by love that would have upheld her,/ Nevertheless she sank and, stiffening, disappeared." The narrator is crushed by the idea that his dog died, even though she was loved, and he realizes that love was not enough to help the dog survive.
This poem is not only about the unseen injuries that people and animals carry around in spite of being loved but also about the way death sometimes accompanies life. Another thesis for this poem might be that death is always present, even in the midst of youth. The puppy is ironically moving towards death even as the family is encouraging the dog to embrace the life of a young and healthy puppy. Updike writes, "As we teased her with play, blood was filling her skin/ And her heart was learning to lie down forever." While the family encourages the young dog to play, she is already dying. The family did not understand that in the midst of their young dog's life, death already loomed.

What is Jay Gould claiming?

Stephen Jay Gould claimed in "Women's Brains" that the conclusions of nineteenth century anthropologist Paul Broca (and his disciples) regarding brain size were faulty. With regard to Broca, Gould argued "I find his numbers sound but his interpretation ill-founded, to say the least." Simply put, Broca believed that women are less intelligent than men based on his claim that women's brains are smaller. Gould heartily disagreed, concluding in this essay that the claims of Broca, Le Bon, and Montessori were "irrelevant and highly injurious" to the groups that their work denigrated.
Gould views Broca's school of thought as a misuse of the scientific process and condemned it for the bigotry that resulted from his interpretations. Gould rejects the claim that any groups possess inferior or superior intelligence, because conclusions influenced by Boca resulted from the faulty use of data. Gould observed that "Women, blacks, and poor people suffered the same disparagement, but women bore the brunt of Broca's argument because he had easier access to data on women's brains."

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 1, 1.1, Section 1.1, Problem 27

Determine the domain of the function $\displaystyle f(x) = \frac{x}{3x - 1}$




The function given is a rational function that is defined for every numbers except for the values of $x$ that could make the denominator equal to 0.



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
3x - 1 &= 0\\
3x & = 1\\
x & = \frac{1}{3}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Therefore,
The domain of the function is: $\displaystyle \left(-\infty, \frac{1}{3}\right)\bigcup \left(\frac{1}{3}, \infty\right)$

When Armand reads the letter at the end, does he gain new knowledge?

One could think that what Armand gains from reading the fragment of letter from his mother is confirmation, if not new insight. Earlier in the story, the narrator refers briefly to Armand's "dark, handsome face." When his son is born and develops, as he grows, a skin tone that is similar to one of the small "quadroon" boys who works in the house, it seems inconceivable that Armand doesn't consider that his own racial heritage could be the source. This is particularly evident when so many of the descriptions of Désirée emphasize her fair skin, gray eyes, and "golden gleam" in her silky brown hair.
If Armand is indeed cognizant that his mother belonged "to the race that is cursed with the brand of slavery" it would help to explain his mistreatment of his slaves. It is an act of self-hatred. Moreover, rejecting his beloved wife and son is an act of self-punishment. And lastly, burning all of Désirée and the baby's belongings enables Armand to keep lying to himself and those who know him about the truth of who he is.

It can be argued that, from Armand's point of view, the knowledge contained in the letter is not new to him. The main reason Armand is burning the letter is because it contains damning evidence about his racial heritage.
Armand is evidently so ashamed of the knowledge in the letter that he feels he must destroy it. His paranoia correlates with his actions earlier in the story, when he rejects Desiree (his wife) for what he considers her "tainted" blood. In the exchange between the couple, Desiree begs for her husband's compassion. However, he refuses to be affected by her pitiful pleadings. Because the baby's skin color appears to match that of typical "quadroons," he is rejected by Armand.
Armand's behavior betrays his hypocrisy. Despite his own biracial heritage, he places blame on Desiree for giving birth to a child of obvious mixed parentage. When Desiree pleads for understanding, he coldly sends her from his home and presence. Armand's behavior, while hypocritical, demonstrates the pervasiveness of Southern racism and its negative effect on society.

What drives Winnie to the woods in Tuck Everlasting?

At the beginning of the novel, ten-year-old Winifred (Winnie) Foster is quite frustrated with her mother and grandmother, who seem to hover over her every move. At one point, she states she wishes she had a different name; one that was not so worn out from being called on all the time. Living in the "touch-me-not-cottage", the nicest home in Treegap, Winnie has not yet sensed freedom from over overbearing family.
As a result, Winnie chooses to run away. Although, she quickly becomes fearful of that plan, as she has never been away from home on her own. So, instead, Winnie decides just venturing into the woods might be a better plan. The woods were her family's after all. This is what draws Winnie into the woods - a sense of freedom; but a "safer" freedom than running away altogether.

For Winnie Foster, the woods represent a rare taste of freedom. She is an only child and feels like she is constantly being monitored by her parents. She feels stifled, and she wants nothing more than just to be herself. The woods hint at a world beyond, a world of freedom and opportunity for adventure which she can explore at leisure, far from the prying eyes of her overprotective parents. How she envies the toad and his freedom! Sick of being ordered about by her mother and grandma she makes an important decision: she is going to run off to the woods and escape.
Although still only a child, Winnie does not feel she should be treated like a little kid. However, that is precisely how she is treated at home. That is why the woods look so inviting. There, she can finally be herself, just like the toad can be true to his nature too. There is a portentousness to Winnie's desire to be a grown-up. Over the course of the story, she will be faced with many situations that force her to grow up very quickly indeed. Ironically, for reasons that will become clear as the story unfolds, this will take place in an environment in which the people she meets, for a very strange reason, are unable to grow in the way that she does.

y' + xy = xy^-1 Solve the Bernoulli differential equation.

Given equation is y'+xy=xy^(-1)
 
An equation of the form y'+Py=Qy^n
is called as the Bernoulli equation .
so, to proceed to solve this equation we have to transform the equation into a linear equation form of first order as follows
=> y' (y^-n) +P y^(1-n)=Q
let u= y^(1-n)
=> (1-n)y^(-n)y'=u'
=> y^(-n)y' = (u')/(1-n)
so ,
y' (y^-n) +P y^(1-n)=Q
=> (u')/(1-n) +P u =Q
so this equation is now of the linear form of first order
Now,
From this equation ,
y'+xy=xy^(-1)
and
y'+Py=Qy^n
on comparing we get
P=x , Q=x , n=-1
so the linear form of first order of the equation y'+xy=xy^(-1) is given as
 
=> (u')/(1-n) +P u =Q where u= y^(1-n) =y^2
=> (u')/(1-(-1)) +(x)u =x
=> (u')/2 +xu=x
=> u'+2xu = 2x
 
so this linear equation is of the form
u' + pu=q
p=2x , q=2x
so I.F (integrating factor ) = e^(int p dx) = e^(int 2x dx) = e^2(x^2)/2 = e^(x^2)
 
and the general solution is given as
u (I.F)=int q * (I.F) dx +c
=> u(e^(x^2))= int (2x) *(e^(x^2)) dx+c
=> u(e^(x^2))=  int (e^(x^2)) 2xdx+c
 
let us first solve
int e^(x^2) 2xdx
so , let t =x^2
dt = 2xdx
int e^(x^2) 2xdx = int e^(t) dt = e^t = e^(x^2)
 
so now => ue^(x^2)=  e^(x^2)+c
=>u=((e^(x^2))+c)/(e^(x^2))
 = 1 +ce^(-x^2)
but
u=y^2 ,so
y^2=(1 +ce^(-x^2))
y= sqrt (1 +ce^(-x^2))
is the general solution.

Compare the description of the kitchen in lines 7-10 to lines 231-239. What do these differing descriptions illustrate?

I believe that the lines in question are the lines about the kitchen making eggs and toast. When this scene first happens, the overall mood is quite tranquil and easy going. There isn't a sense of hurry or worry about it at all. It sounds like a very pleasant morning with the house calmly making the correct amount of eggs and toast. The kitchen makes a hissing "sigh" as it works to make "perfectly browned toast" and "cool" milk.
At the story's conclusion, the mood in the kitchen is quite different. The kitchen is in panic mode. It's frantically trying to get stuff done, and the kitchen is making all kinds of mistakes. It's making 10 dozen eggs and 8 loaves of toast. It is "hysterically" hissing and making the meal at a "psychopathic" rate. These two descriptions help further illustrate how the house has fallen apart. It has been broken physically, but the house has also been broken "mentally." It can't physically do its job correctly, but even if it could, the house is no longer thinking and feeling correctly. It's been broken on all levels.

Can I get a close reading of the beginning of chapter 13 in the French Lieutenant's Woman?

Chapter 13 begins with a long digression on the nature of the story Fowles is writing. He argues that the story is a work of the imagination, but he speculates that his book might be a book of essays, or an autobiography instead. The problem Fowles is getting at here is the nature and motivation of his characters. He argues that his characters are autonomous; even though he is the author (he is thus “god-like” and omniscient), things in his book do not go according to plan. One example is Charles’s decision to leave Sarah and return to the dairy, even though the author “ordered” him to return to town. Fowles writes, “I must respect it [Charles’ decision], and disrespect all my quasi-divine plans for him, if I wish him to be real. In other words, to be free myself, I must give him, and Tina, and Sarah, even the abominable Mrs. Poulteney, their freedom as well. There is only one good definition of God: the freedom that allows other freedoms to exist. And I must conform to that definition.” Whatever the impulse that resulted in Charles going to the dairy, Fowles sees the role of the author as allowing such indeterminacy to occur. This calls into question the primacy of authorial intent in the book and suggests that the novel is actually a negotiation between the many different subjectivities or “voices” in the work. If each character is truly autonomous, then the question becomes this: "which subjectivity (if any) is telling the truth?" Is Sarah’s fall from the window her decision, or Fowles’s decision? The point of this part of the chapter is to call into question the “reliability” of both the author and the story he is telling.

x=2-picost , y=2t-pisint Find the equations of the tangent lines at the point where the curve crosses itself.

The given parametric equations are ,
x=2-picos(t), y=2t-pisin(t)
The curve crosses itself for different values of t , which give the same x and y value.
So, to get the point where the curve crosses itself, let's make a table for different values of t.(Refer attached image)
From the table , we can find that the curve crosses itself at (2,0) for t=+-pi/2
The derivative dy/dx is the slope of the line tangent to the parametric graph (x(t),y(t)).
dy/dx=(dy/dt)/(dx/dt)
dx/dt=-pi(-sin(t))=pisin(t)
dy/dt=2-picos(t)
dy/dx=(2-picos(t))/(pisin(t))
At t=pi/2 , dy/dx=(2-picos(pi/2))/(pisin(pi/2))=2/pi
Equation of the tangent line can be found by the point slope form of the line,
y-0=2/pi(x-2)
y=2/pi(x-2) 
At t=-pi/2 ,dy/dx=(2-picos(-pi/2))/(pisin(-pi/2))=2/(-pi)=-2/pi 
Equation of the tangent line,
y-0=-2/pi(x-2)
y=-2/pi(x-2)
Equation of the tangent lines at the point where the given curve crosses itself are :
y=2/pi(x-2), y=-2/pi(x-2)  

What is ironic about Paul's mother finally loving him?

Although Paul's mother devotes more attention to him during his sickness, her solicitude is superficial at best. For reasons that the author has not revealed, Paul's mother remains emotionally detached from her children.
People who are unable to love often compensate for their emotional numbness by forming what is called a pseudo, or fantasy, bond with their loved ones. Emotionally wounded individuals resort to this type of defense mechanism to conform to society's ideals about love and loyalty.
As the text tells us, people like Hester show great gentleness or solicitude towards loved ones because it is the only way they can convince themselves (and others) that they are normal. So, when Paul becomes ill due to the immense stress he has been under, Hester manifests the expected behavior of a concerned, loving mother. This is the only way she can avoid undue scrutiny of her true self.
This pseudo-mother-love is the only kind of "love" that Paul will ever receive from his mother. Even on his deathbed, Paul must endure his mother's lack of real feeling for him. The text tells us that Paul's bet on Malabar (the horse) made his family over eighty thousand pounds. Yet, his mother remains impervious to everything he has tried to do to win her love. 
Her solicitude for him on his deathbed is even more ironic in the sense that Paul can no longer appreciate it. He has become emotionally numb in the process of trying to draw out his mother's love. His last words are of Malabar the horse and his propensity for being "lucky." Paul is now, by his mother's definition, "lucky" but still very much unloved.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-experience/200812/the-fantasy-bond-substitute-loving-relationship

Actually, Paul's mother never is able to love him, even when he is on his deathbed. She does rush "to gather him up" in "tormented motherhood" when he falls from his rocking horse. She sits with him as he suffers from a brain fever before he dies, but we are told she is a "heart-frozen mother." The term "heart-frozen" means that, try as she might, she cannot love—she is incapable of it. Something has cut her off from her emotions. To reinforce this idea, Lawrence refers to her as sitting by Paul "stonily" and feeling as if her heart had actually turned to stone. She stays with her son out of a sense of duty, not because she loves him. The irony of the story is that Paul has given everything he has to try to earn her love, even his life, but it is simply impossible. He dies before he is old enough to know that she cannot love anyone.

Unbreathed air mainly contains what?

By "unbreathed" I assume you mean the air that is present in our atmosphere and around us.
The air (or unbreathed air) is composed of a number of gases. The chief among them is nitrogen (chemical symbol: N) and accounts for about 78% of the volume of air. The next major constituent is oxygen (chemical symbol: O). Oxygen accounts for about 21% of the volume of air. Oxygen is also critical for the survival of living beings (aerobic life forms only) on Earth. We as humans cannot survive without regular intake of oxygen.
Argon (chemical symbol: Ar) accounts for about 1% of the volume of air. Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) accounts for about 0.04% of air, by volume. There are other constituents of air as well, including water vapors and minor (or trace) concentrations of other gases, such as hydrogen, helium, methane, and so on.
Hope this helps.

How do the townspeople treat the lottery box?

The box is an interesting part of this story, and the town's treatment of it is equally interesting.  I would say that in general, the people treat the black box with a mixture of wary respect and carelessness at the same time.  
Let us start with wary respect.  Essentially, the black box determines who lives and who will die.  It is not a nice box that is holding the name of a traditional lottery winner.  The "winner" of this lottery is stoned to death, so the box represents a scary set of final moments for a single person every year.  This lottery has been going on for years and years and is an important part of the society.  The box is the central item around which the lottery takes place; therefore, it is a powerful and scary item.  People whisper in its presence, and they make sure to maintain a certain distance from it.  

When he arrived in the square, carrying the black wooden box, there was a murmur of conversation among the villagers, and he waved and called. "Little late today, folks." The postmaster, Mr. Graves, followed him, carrying a three-legged stool, and the stool was put in the center of the square and Mr. Summers set the black box down on it. The villagers kept their distance, leaving a space between themselves and the stool.

In addition to being wary of the box's power, the people are unwilling to get rid of it.  It is not some meaningless box that can be easily replaced.  The box, like the lottery itself, is part of a deep tradition.  It must be respected as a part of that tradition.  That is why nobody supports the idea of getting a new box.  

Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box.

Despite all of the above, it is shocking how carelessly the people treat the box on any other day of the year.  While the box has a special stool that it sits on during the lottery, it has no such special resting place for the other 364 days of the year.  It is stored wherever a space can be found, and there is nothing special about a place like the back of a barn.    

The rest of the year, the box was put way, sometimes one place, sometimes another; it had spent one year in Mr. Graves's barn and another year underfoot in the post office. Sometimes it was set on a shelf in the Martin grocery and left there. 

This general carelessness is probably why the box has become so shabby looking.  People do not take care of it, and it has become a beat-up, old box. 

The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color and in some places faded or stained.

I suppose it is possible that the box's caretakers are intentionally not taking care of the box.  Perhaps they want to be rid of the lottery, and they believe that if the box falls apart, the lottery will end as well.  

What can we conclude about Antonio's character in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice?

Antonio, like most human beings, has a mixed character. We can admire him for his loyalty to Bassanio and his love for this friend. Whether the relationship is homoerotic or not, Antonio is willing to do anything to help this beloved young man. We can also admire Antonio as a successful merchant, willing to send his ships on risky ventures to get merchandise. This risk-taking extends to the loan he takes out from Shylock, confident that one of his ships will come to port before the loan is due to be repaid.
Antonio is confident, generous, loyal, a successful businessman, and willing to take risks. But he is also anti-Semitic, and Shylock resents a long history of insults and even low-scale violence from this merchant. Antonio is kind to his friends, but he is never kind to Shylock, even working to force this devout Jew to convert to Christianity at the end of the play.
We can also question whether Antonio is overconfident when he blithely agrees to the loan terms set up by Shylock. It seems that Antonio has grown so used to success that he is unable to imagine it not continuing to come his way. By the end of the play, however, he has received a warning call.

Antonio is one of the more important characters in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. He is portrayed as a wealthy merchant who is well-respected in the city of Venice. He is intended to be admired for his role as a mentor and father figure to the rather imprudent Bassanio. Antonio is portrayed as loyal and self-sacrificing, willing to risk the loss of a pound of flesh for his young friend.
Close examination of his character, though, makes him somewhat less admirable. First, something many modern readers will find disturbing is his virulent antisemitism, behavior that underlies Shylock's insisting on such a harsh penalty. Antonio's treatment of Shylock shows a vindictive side to his character and religious and ethnic bigotry.
Next, Antonio's cash flow crisis makes the audience wonder if he is an imprudent merchant, prone to excessive risk taking and acting on impulse. His providing security to Bassanio to help Bassanio win the hand of a rich wife is problematic; outside of romantic drama, a good mentor would suggest that Bassanio curtail his expenses and get a job. Some critics have suggested a possible homosexual relationship between Antonio and Bassanio to account for the way in which Antonio seems so recklessly and impulsively self-sacrificing, though others argue that close male friendships with strong emotional overtones were common in this period and do not necessarily entail homosexual relationships.

How can I start a five-paragraph cause and effect essay on the topic of obesity?

To start any kind of essay like this you need to figure out what point you want to make to your readers.  You want to be able to summarize your point in a single sentence.  Teachers often refer to this sentence as the thesis statement.  It should be placed at the end of your introductory paragraph, and it will guide the following body paragraphs.  I like recommending a two-part thesis statement because it usually allows writers to make a point and counter-point argument.  In your situation, the two-part thesis statement will still work because it allows the thesis statement to be stated in a cause and effect format.  I would start the thesis with the word "although" because it forces a dependent clause.  That, in turn, forces a following independent clause.  For example:

Although there are many different contributing causes to current obesity rates within the United States, the resulting health issues are all extremely serious.  

The above thesis is specific in topic.  It clearly states the essay is going to be about obesity causes and obesity effects.  It's also broad enough to allow you to discuss multiple causes and multiple effects.  
I also want to emphasize the need for a good first sentence.  I call it the "attention-getter."  The very first sentence of any essay or paper needs to grab reader attention right away.  A reader that is bored by the end of the first sentence isn't likely to keep reading.  I recommend one of four types of attention-getters.  
Ask a question.  A question immediately focuses a reader by requiring them to mentally engage with the question.  They are thinking about possible answers as they continue reading your paper.  
Use a quote.  By using a quote you draw special attention to the words in the quote.  Readers assume that the quote is important and noteworthy; therefore, it should be paid closer attention.  
Use a bold, perhaps controversial statement.  The goal is to get an emotional response out of your reader.  Emotionally engaged readers are readers that typically want to keep reading.  
Use a definition.  It's effective, but it is my least favorite of the attention getters.  In the case of your essay, I would simply provide a definition for "obesity."
Since your essay needs to be about the causes and effects of obesity, the body paragraphs need to discuss possible causes of obesity.  Your essay is only five paragraphs; however, obesity is likely caused by more than five factors.   Pick one or two that you feel are most prevalent or that you feel most passionately about.  You might even be able to combine multiple contributing factors together.  In my health class, we spend a lot of time talking about nutrition and exercise.  I don't want to say that the only causes of obesity are poor diet/nutrition and lack of exercise, but I do think those are major contributors.  You could definitely fill a paragraph or two on those two topics alone.  
As for the effects of obesity, you can't simply tell your readers that obesity is unhealthy.  You need to give specifics.  Obesity can result in diabetes, high blood pressure, increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of heart disease, and extra wear and tear on bones and joints.  Those are only some of the physical health risks associated with obesity.  Obesity also carries emotional, mental, and social health risks too.  You might want to include some of those as well.  
Close out your essay with a final concluding paragraph.  Don't forget about this paragraph.  It's a key paragraph because it summarizes the previous 3–4 paragraphs and calls attention to the initial thesis again.  Lastly, a strong conclusion needs to push readers toward caring about your topic and even push the reader toward taking action.  This is the one place in the paper where your "voice" and opinion can come through quite strongly.  

What is the difference between Minoan and Mycenaean art?

The art of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (along with works from the Cyclades) make up the period of prehistoric Aegean art that preceded the ancient Greeks.
The Minoans (approximately 3500 BC - 1100 BC) were an island dwelling culture centered on Crete. They were largely a seafaring, mercantile society that enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. This is evoked in the immense palaces that characterize this period that were constructed more for beauty than for defense. Minoan palaces featured elaborate floor plans with long corridors, airy stairwells, spacious courtyards, sizable living areas, labyrinthine magazines, and large theaters. They were also decorated with vibrant frescoes characterized by lively figures engaging in Minoan culture including bull-leaping and sailing.
Nature was another common Minoan motif. The first known example of a pure landscape painting is the Spring Fresco from Akrotiri with its multicolored rock formations and whimsical depictions of flowers and birds. Life lived on an island also meant sea animals were a central motif, especially on pottery.
In contrast, the mainland culture of the Mycenaeans (approximately 1600 BC - 1100 BC) produced art and architecture that reflected a civilization often at war. Instead of elegant palaces they built hulking citadels composed of enormous stone blocks. Dubbed Cyclopean masonry by their predecessors, the ancient Greeks, who assumed no mere mortals could build with such monumental materials, Mycenaean architecture emphasized security and practicality above all. Fittingly, the decoration of Mycenaean architecture is less fanciful and more focused on making a heroic or fearsome impression as with the Lion Gate of Agamemnon's Mycenae and other Mycenaean fortresses and tombs.

This emphasis on battle and the glory of great kings and leaders left little room for the fancifulness and detail that was commonly found in Minoan art. Indeed, the pottery that survives from the time is more schematic, with less detail and a greater abstractness. This seemed to presage the "Dark Age" that would grip Greece after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization near the beginning of the 11th century BC.

The Minoan civilization existed during 3,000–1,400 BCE, before the Mycenaean Civilization (1,600–1,100 BCE), and in many ways influenced the Mycenaean arts. While both civilizations created pottery, metal objects, and paintings on the walls of their buildings, Minoan artists developed more elegant frescoes in their palaces, incorporating the language known as Linear A into these works. Mycenaean artists developed the art of enameling and utilized the language known as Linear B in their artwork.
The Minoan people excelled at frescos (pigments mixed together with water and painted on the wall) and led Greek culture in pottery design. As Minoan culture expanded and attention turned to public buildings and palaces, Minoan artists began designing large frescos for the walls of these buildings, depicting themes of nature. Incorporated into this artwork was the writing known as Linear A.
Mycenaean art, by contrast, often reflected warrior-like tendencies; their paintings depicted hunting scenes and images of war. The Mycenaean people also used a language in their artwork, but it was a new language known as Linear B. Where Minoan culture developed the decoration of pottery, Mycenaean artists became experts in enameling. The process they established melts glass over metal to create a jewel-like texture.
The best way to find the difference in styles from these two cultures is to compare and contrast actual images. Look at these two examples of pottery. The left is from the Myceneaen culture, while the right is from the Minoan culture. Ask yourself, are there differences in theme, line, medium, or color? What techniques do you think were used?
http://arthistoryteachingresources.org/lessons/aegean-art/

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/ancient-art/minoan.htm

The most significant difference between Minoan and Mycenaean art reflects the cultural difference of valuing peace over warfare.  For example, while Minoan weaponry was primarily ceremonial and not designed for defense, the Mycenaeans boasted an array of weaponry clearly meant to inflict harm and defend against attack.  
Architecturally speaking, Mycenaean structures consisted of high walls with ready barricades and built-in defense mechanisms, while Minoan structures were for the most part open, consisting of numerous windows and doors leading to gardens and allowing for easy transportation between buildings.
In terms of visual art, the subject matter of Mycenaean work was often combative, vividly depicting scenes of heroism on the field of battle and corresponding carnage, while the Minoans created peaceful scenes featuring animal and marine life content alongside the civilization of man. 
 

As Mycenaean art was heavily influenced by Minoan art, the differences are fairly subtle. The main difference is due to the Minoans being primarily a naval power and the Mycenaeans a land power. Thus while cities on the mainland were heavily fortified against land attacks, and had monumental defensive walls, the Minoans relied on their ships for defense. 
Both societies used tholos or beehive tombs and chamber tombs for burial of the dead, often accompanied by various forms of grave goods, intended to accompany the deceased into the afterlife. Gold funeral masks seem unique to Mycenaean society. 
Two uniquely Minoan elements in art are what are known as "horns of consecration" (stylized bull horns) and pictures of bull-jumping. Both of these have some form of religious significance, with the first being ubiquitous in Knossos and other palaces.
Women play a more prominent role in art works found on Crete and Thera than they do in mainland art, with both sculptures and frescoes of female figures being common. 

What is George's theory of what happened to Myrtle?

George Wilson wrongly believes that it was Gatsby who struck and killed Myrtle. He knows that it was a yellow car that cut down his wife in the middle of the road; he also knows that when Tom stopped by his gas station to fill up, he was driving a yellow car. Yet Tom is able to persuade George that the car he was driving wasn't really his after all, despite what he'd originally told him. Tom's desperate attempt to dig himself out of trouble plants in George's tortured, grief-stricken mind the notion that if he can track down the owner of the car, then he'll have his wife's killer. Once he finds out the car belongs to Jay, it's game over for Gatsby.

What underlying factors in the events of the 1770s led the colonies to declare their independence from Britain?

The colonists' grievances were pretty clearly defined in some of their statements. Stemming largely from taxation, the colonists' believed they were being taken advantage of—and truthfully, they were. Great Britain was fighting more and more wars, including the French and Indian War that took place on the American continent. This drained their resources, and so, instead of going into the purse of Parliament or taking from the citizens living in the British Isles, they levied taxes and fines against the colonists.
Unfortunately, the colonists had little say in these fines and had absolutely no representation in the government to fight against these taxes. The most frustrating thing was that the colonists were being taxed to pay for wars and events that they perceived as having nothing to do with them, which they had no opportunity to fight—leading to the cry "No taxation without representation."
Additionally, during and after the war, the British were forcing colonists to quarter soldiers within their houses. They gave up land and house space to soldiers who were doing little to protect the interests of the colonies and, at this time, were mainly there to enforce collection of taxes. All of these issues boiled to a head and caused the colonists to rebel.

While the roots of the American Revolution lie in the French and Indian War that ended in 1763, if we are to look specifically at events from the 1770s that helped ignite revolution, three stand out.
The first is the Boston Massacre of 1770, in which British troops fired on Americans protesting their presence and killed five of them. The colonists were already upset at the presence of British troops in the colonies, and this event incited even more unrest and more call for British troops to leave the colonies.
The second was the Tea Act of 1773. This was not a tax, but a license for the British East India Company, which was in financial distress, to sell its tea at low cost in the colonies. The colonists saw this as a move that would undercut their own tea trade, and they also feared that it was opening the way for the British to impose more taxes on them by interfering directly in their commerce.
The third was the Quartering Act of 1774, which the colonists found "intolerable." This allowed British soldiers who, for whatever reason, could not be housed in their barracks to be billeted in American homes. As the Americans did not want the British troops in the colonies to begin with, having them in their homes was an even worse affront.
The Americans wished much less British control over their affairs, but with these three acts, the British appeared to be asserting more control. These acts incited tensions that were already high.

In the period after the French and Indian War, the colonies were going through what modern economists would call a recession. The colonists wanted to keep as much money at home as possible in order to maintain their local governments. Parliament had been passing tax laws for years but had not been enforcing them. When Parliament decided to end the policy of salutary neglect, the colonists grew angry and rebelled. While most colonists grumbled and paid the taxes anyway, the majority of the taxes, such as the Stamp Act, targeted a small, highly literate group of influential people who succeeded in stirring up anti-Parliament sentiment. These same influential people also resented the Proclamation Line of 1763, which was meant to keep the colonists out of the western territories. Land speculation was a major source of income for the rich in the colonies, and they resented any attempt to curb this enterprise. The colonists also fought against how they were treated by the British. While both sides were to blame for the Boston Massacre, the colonists quickly turned this into an anti-British propaganda tool. The colonists also did not like that smugglers were taken to Admiralty Courts rather than local juries. The colonists especially resented the Intolerable Acts, which closed the port of Boston. All of these things led to colonial anger; they rightfully claimed that they were being treated like second-class citizens.

There were many reasons behind the American colonies' decision to declare independence from Great Britain:
The colonists believed that they were being taken advantage of and treated unfairly by the British, particularly after many tax laws were passed that negatively impacted the colonists. Additionally, the American colonies went unrepresented in Parliament, meaning that the colonists had no say in the tax laws passed or any other measure that may have affected them.
The colonists did not like the restrictions placed on them by the British government, particularly the Proclamation of 1763, which prevented them from migrating west of the Appalachian Mountains in order to obtain cheap land. In addition to this restriction, the colonists were made responsible for paying for part of the costs of stationing the troops who enforce this Proclamation. 
The Boston Massacre also incited anger and resentment after five colonists were killed at the hands of the British. This helped kick off a period of resistance that preceded the formal declaration of pursuing independence, including the staging of the Boston Tea Party as a means of protesting the Tea Act. Unfortunately for the colonists, the British tightened their grip with the introduction of the so-called "Intolerable Acts": the Boston Port Act (which closed the port of Boston until the colonists paid for the tea they had destroyed), the Massachusetts Government Act (which revoked Massachusetts' charter and placed it under the control of the British government), the Administration of justice Act (which ensured that royal officials being placed on trial would have those trials take place in Great Britain), and the Quartering Act (which permitted the governor to house soldiers in other buildings when quarters were not provided). 
Altogether, the increasing control that Britain attempted to exert over the colonies only backfired, resulting in their insistence upon freedom from what they considered to be tyranny.

What are some similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity?

Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions of the world, with 2.4 and 1.6 billion adherents, respectively. Both are Abrahamic faiths, which means that both of these religions trace the founding of a relationship between God and man to the biblical figure of Abraham. Because of this shared heritage, Christianity and Islam have much in common, but they do differ in a few important ways.
First, let's compare and contrast worship in Christianity and Islam. Christians and Muslims may pray privately, at home, or publicly, in a house of worship. For Christians, this public house of worship is called a Church, and for Muslims, the Masjid or Mosque. In both religions, there are ritualized ways of praying, including gestures and reciting certain prayers or passages of the holy books. One major difference between these two religions is that Muslims are required to pray five times every day, though they may be excused from this if they are sick or menstruating. While Christians are encouraged to pray daily, it is not a requirement.
We can consider some of the other requirements for people in these religions. Both observe a fasting holiday of about a month. Lent and Ramadan are considered the times of year when Christians and Muslims should reflect on their actions of the previous year, deepen their religious study, and try to abstain from sins. Many people choose to donate to charity, fast from food or a particular substance, and read their holy book more often during these times. Ramadan is also a popular time of year for fulfilling the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. To visit at least once in one's life is one of the Five Pillars (or duties, responsibilities) of Islam. The others are prayer, fasting, charity (which is encouraged in Christianity,) and attesting that there is only one God (also in Christianity.) 
The Muslim and Christian Gods are, in essence, the same God, but they are treated differently in each religion. In the Christian tradition, God is referred to with masculine pronouns and often depicted as a large man surrounded by clouds. Though depicted as a man, God is somewhat formless, the creator of all, and is timeless. In Islam, God (called "Allah" in Arabic) is never depicted, nor is the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him.) To do so is considered sinful because it reduces the all-encompassing nature of God to a reflection of what the artist finds beautiful. In Islam, God has no gender (indeed, is all genders) but is sometimes referred to in the masculine sense. Islam also holds that God is the creator of all things and knows all.
Authority in both religions is believed to come from God and bestowed upon people, typically by someone who is already empowered with this authority. In Christianity, priests, preachers, pastors, monks, nuns, and scholars are authority figures, but only priests can claim to trace their authority back to the Twelve Apostles. Jesus Christ is regarded as the first priest of Christianity as well as the son of God, who initiated the final covenant with God. Muslim people regard Jesus Christ as one of many prophets, but do not believe he was the son of God, or that he was the final prophet. Rather, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is believed to have received the word of God, in the form of the Holy Quran, from the angel Gabriel. He is regarded as the last and truest prophet as well as the founder of Islam. In Islam, imams (similar to priests,) muezzin (who make the call to prayer,) and scholars of Islam are the authority figures. Authority in Islam does not stem from a person's ability to trace their empowerment back to Muhammad, but is drawn from their dedication to religious study.
Before we recap, bear in mind that within Islam or Christianity, there are many sects and regional variations where religious belief and practice differ. In general, these two religions have in common that they are both monotheistic, believe in revelations, have a holy book, believe in the afterlife, and require prayer and charity. They do have many more similarities on very minute levels, but I hope that I have adequately addressed major similarities and differences.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam

What "momentous decision" was made by Robert Frost in 1912?

Though Robert Frost is known as one of America's great poets, he first gained momentum as a publishing poet while he was living in Great Britain with this family. 1912 was the year in which Frost decided to leave his farm life in New Hampshire. He decided to sell the farm partially because he and his wife, Elinor, had proved to be unsuccessful farmers, but the farm also held memories of some of his children dying. So though Frost had become acclimated to living in a rural setting, he moved his family to Europe.
Frost found success there, having great names like Ezra Pound positively review his writing. But as the tensions grew in the continent and the conflict that was later to be known as World War I began, Frost decided to return to the United States. By 1916, Frost had joined forces with an editor who would help to propel his career, and many of the poems that helped him to launch his career back in America were written during his time in the UK.
https://www.biography.com/writer/robert-frost

Why did the Republicans oppose the initiatives of the Democrats in the New Deal?

The New Deal represented a very significant shift in thinking about the role our government should play in the economy, especially when difficult times occurred. Throughout the 1920s, a decade when Republicans were elected to the presidency, the prevailing attitude was one of laissez-faire. This meant that the government should have a very limited role in dealing with our economy. There would be few government rules and regulations, allowing businesses to have a great deal of freedom.
When the Great Depression began, this philosophy continued under the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Many people believed that things would eventually work themselves out on their own with little government help. As the Great Depression worsened, more people began to change their thinking. However, many Republicans were opposed to increasing the role of the federal government in dealing with the economy.
The New Deal clearly represented the viewpoint that the government must do something when difficult times occurred. There were programs that established rules and regulations on the banking industry and on the investment industry. The Glass-Steagall Act and the Securities Act were examples of these programs. There were many government programs that created jobs. The CCC, the CWA, the PWA, and the WPA were examples of government programs that created jobs.
Republicans were opposed to this significantly larger role of the federal government. They also were concerned about the increased debt that our country faced. The New Deal financed these programs through deficit spending. The Republicans were uncomfortable with this. The Republicans also felt that these programs didn’t reduce the harsh effects of the Great Depression as much as they should have reduced them. They were concerned that all this money was being spent, but the unemployment rate wasn’t dropping as much as it should have. They believed the recovery was too slow. The Republicans, especially business owners, were concerned that some of the New Deal programs gave too much power to workers and their unions. They were concerned about the number of strikes that occurred after the passage of the Wagner Act. Therefore, they believed that the increased role of the government, the increased government spending, and the increased number of government rules and regulations weren’t having the desired effect of bringing the Great Depression to an end.
https://www.ushistory.org/us/49f.asp

What is the meaning of the following quote from Romeo and Juliet?: "My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early seen unknown, and known too late!"

Juliet speaks these lines in act 1, scene 5 a short time after meeting Romeo for the first time, holding hands with him, kissing him, and falling absolutely in love with him at first sight. It's only after Romeo has left the Capulet's masked ball that Juliet thinks to find out who he is.
Tybalt had only to hear Romeo's voice to know who he was, even though Romeo was wearing a mask; but, as unlikely as it might seem since Romeo and Juliet have lived in Verona their entire lives, Juliet has never seen, spoken with, or even heard of Romeo before she met him at the Capulet's party that evening. Apparently, Juliet doesn't get out of the Capulet house very much, or speak with anyone who comes to the house, or speak to anybody who does get out of the house, except for the Nurse.
To be fair to Juliet, Romeo didn't ask Juliet's name, either. (In fact, Romeo is never told her name, but somehow he knows her name two scenes later in the "balcony scene.")
It seems odd, though, that at a party at the Capulet home, which is full of Capulets and their friends, Romeo is surprised to find out that the girl he was kissing is a Capulet, or at the very least someone associated with the Capulet family.

ROMEO: Is she a Capulet?O dear account! my life is my foe's debt (1.5.125–126).

Nevertheless, at the time Romeo and Juliet meet, Juliet has no idea who he is, and in all that hand-holding and kissing they didn't even exchange first names, so she asks her Nurse who he is.

NURSE: I know not.
JULIET: Go ask his name.—If he be married,My grave is like to be my wedding bed (1.5.142–144).

Without leaving Juliet's side, or hesitating for even a New York minute, the Nurse has a ready answer.

NURSE: His name is Romeo, and a Montague,The only son of your great enemy (1.5.145–146).

"Go ask his name" would seem to be an implied stage direction (as many of Shakespeare's stage directions are), but even if the Nurse is very quick about it, who would she ask? Tybalt knows who he is, but Lord Capulet already kicked Tybalt out of the party for threatening to disrupt the festivities by brawling with Romeo. Lord Capulet knows who Romeo is, too, but he's already gone off to bed. Romeo, Benvolio and all of the other "maskers" have left the building, leaving only Juliet and the Nurse. It's unlikely, too, that anyone associated with the Montagues would endanger themselves or Romeo by telling anyone associated with the Capulet household who he is.
In any event, Juliet learns that her newfound love's name is Romeo, and that he's a member of a family who are sworn enemies of the Capulets.

JULIET: My only love sprung from my only hate! (1.5.147)

Juliet is clearly distressed to learn that the love of her life - quite possibly the only love of her life so far - is a member of the hated Montague family, with whom the Capulets have been feuding since time immemorial, probably for a reason that no one can even remember.

JULIET: Too early seen unknown, and known too late! (1.5.148)

As other Educators have noted, Juliet is lamenting the fact that she didn't know who Romeo was, or to which family he belonged, before she met him and fell in love with him.
It might not have made any difference even if she had known—it certainly made no difference to Romeo that Juliet is a Capulet, given his boldness in invading the Capulet's orchard to get a look at her, and maybe do some more hand-holding and kissing—but Juliet doesn't seem to be quite as impulsive as Romeo is (except for falling in love with him at first sight, of course), and she might have been more circumspect about meeting with him, or avoided meeting with him at all.
In which case, Shakespeare's play would likely have been titled Romeo and Rosaline.

Shortly after falling for Romeo at her father's ball, Juliet asks the Nurse to identify Romeo as he is leaving and discovers that he is a hated Montague. Juliet responds by saying,

My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early seen unknown, and known too late! (1.5.138–139)

Juliet is essentially saying that the only person she loves is a member of the Montague family, which happens to be her sworn enemy. In the second line, Juliet continues to lament that she was introduced to Romeo before she discovered that he was a Montague. Juliet believes that if she had known Romeo was a Montague in the first place, she would have been more discerning about her affection for him and reserved about her feelings. However, Juliet has already fallen for Romeo and must devise a plan to be with him. Juliet proceeds to ask the Nurse for help, and Romeo seeks Friar Lawrence's assistance in marrying Juliet.

The line "My only love sprung from my only hate" refers to two things. First, Romeo has made such an impression on Juliet that she believes he is now her only love. Essentially, Romeo dwarfs her other potential loves, so much so that he is seen as the only love worth acknowledging in Juliet's mind. Second, "my only hate" refers to the fact that Romeo is a Montague, who are sworn enemies of the Capulets (Juliet's family). From her childhood days, Juliet has been taught to hate only one enemy: the Montagues.
Now we move on to the second line: "Too early seen unknown, and known too late!" In this line, Juliet laments that she didn't know Romeo's identity when she met him earlier. If she had known, she may have had reservations about accepting a dance invitation from him. Juliet also frets that she is apprised of Romeo's Montague roots only after they part ways ("known too late"). By then, she has fallen in love with him, and it is too late to stem the tide of her feelings for Romeo.
Juliet also laments that Love isn't playing fair: she meets the man of her dreams, only to find out that he is the son of her father's sworn enemy.

This quote is found in act 1, scene 5, during the party scene after Romeo and Juliet have met, kissed, and fallen in love at first sight. Juliet does not know who Romeo is (in particular, she does not know that he is a Montague), so she asks the Nurse to ask Romeo his name. When the Nurse returns, she informs Juliet that he is a Montague. Juliet's family, the Capulets, have been feuding bitterly with the Montagues for decades. Juliet speaks the lines, "My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early to see unknown, and known too late!" as an aside, so the Nurse is unable to hear her. She speaks these words to herself because she is upset about the fact that she is in love with the son of her family's greatest enemy. She is also regretful that she saw Romeo and fell in love with him before knowing his name and who he is.

How would you characterize Mr. Henderson and the other men in Trifles?

Susan Glaspell's Trifles is a short, one-act play centered on the investigation of the death of a man named John Wright. The main characters are Mrs. Peters, wife of the Sheriff, and Mrs. Hale, a neighbor of John and Minnie Wright.
George Henderson is the sexist, condescending, and self-important county attorney who harshly criticizes Mrs. Wright without knowing anything about her or her life.
The Sheriff and Mr. Hale both don't really have any defining character traits, other than that they are direct and straightforward with their actions. Though Hale is not as presumptuous or overtly rude as the other men, it becomes clear that these two, like Henderson, are sexist and undervaluing of the women in their lives, as all three men make insulting comments when the women talk about "trifles" like Mrs. Wright's preserves and her quilting project.
One of the main points of Trifles is that men often overlook things that women see as important, brushing off their thoughts and feelings as "worrying over trifles." It is Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale who uncover the truth of what happened between Mr. and Mrs. Wright, because they empathize and pay attention the details of Minnie's life, while the men are off acting important upstairs.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 8, 8.1, Section 8.1, Problem 18

Evaluate $\displaystyle \int e^{-\theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta$
If we let $u = e^{-\theta}$ and $dv = \cos 2 \theta d \theta$ then
$du = e^{-\theta} (-1) d \theta$ and $\displaystyle v = \int \cos 2 \theta d \theta = \frac{1}{2} \sin 2 \theta$

So,

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int e^{-\theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta = uv - \int v du &= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta - \int \frac{1}{2} \sin 2 \theta \left( -e^{-\theta} \right)\\
\\
&= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta + \frac{1}{2} \int e^{-\theta} \sin 2 \theta d \theta
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



To evaluate $\displaystyle \int e^{-\theta} \sin 2 \theta d \theta$, we must apply integration by parts once more... so,
If we let $u_1 = e^{-\theta}$ and $dv_1 = \sin 2 \theta d \theta$, then
$du_1 = e^{-\theta} (-1) d \theta$ and $ \displaystyle v_1 = \int \sin 2 \theta d \theta = -\frac{1}{2} \cos 2 \theta$

So,
$\displaystyle \int e^{- \theta} \sin 2 \theta d \theta = u_1 v_1 - \int v_1 d u_1 = \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2 \theta}{2}-\int \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2 \theta d \theta}{2}$

Going back from the equation,

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int e^{- \theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta &= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta + \frac{1}{2} \left[ -\frac{e^{- \theta} \cos 2 \theta }{2} - \int \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2\theta}{2} d \theta \right]\\
\\
\int e^{- \theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta &= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta - \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2 \theta}{4} - \frac{1}{4} \int e^{-\theta}\cos 2\theta d \theta
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Let's continue the like terms.

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int e^{- \theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta + \frac{1}{4} \int e^{-\theta} \cos 2\theta d \theta &= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta - \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2 \theta}{4}\\
\frac{5}{4} \int e^{-\theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta &= \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta - \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2\theta}{4}\\
\\
\int e^{-\theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta &= \left[ \frac{e^{-\theta}}{2} \sin 2 \theta - \frac{e^{-\theta}}{4} \cos 2 \theta \right] \frac{4}{5}\\
\\
\int e^{-\theta} \cos 2 \theta d \theta &= \frac{2e^{-\theta}\sin 2 \theta}{5} - \frac{e^{-\theta}\cos 2 \theta}{5} + c
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 5, 5.6, Section 5.6, Problem 56

y=25arcsin(x/5) - xsqrt(25-x^2)
Before taking the derivative, express the radical in exponent form.
y=25arcsin(x/5) - x(25-x^2)^(1/2)
To get y', take the derivative of each term.
y' = d/dx[25arcsin(x/5)] - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
y' = 25d/dx[arcsin(x/5)] - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
Take note that the derivative formula of arcsine is d/dx[arcsin(u)] = 1/sqrt(1-u^2)*(du)/dx .
Applying that formula, y' will become:
y'=25* 1/sqrt(1-(x/5)^2) *d/dx(x/5) - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
y'=25* 1/sqrt(1-(x/5)^2) *1/5 - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
y'=25* 1/sqrt(1- x^2/25)*1/5 - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
y'=25* 1/((1/5)sqrt(25- x^2))*1/5 - d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) -d/dx[x(25-x^2)^(1/2)]
To take the derivative of the second term, apply the product rule d/dx(u*v) = u*(dv)/dx + v*(du)/dx .
Applying this, the y' will be:
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [x*d/dx((25-x^2)^(1/2)) + (25-x^2)^(1/2)*d/dx(x)]
Also, use the derivative formula d/dx(u^n) = n*u^(n-1)*(du)/dx .
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [x*1/2*(25-x^2)^(-1/2)*d/dx(25-x^2) + (25-x^2)^(1/2)*1]
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [x*1/2*(25-x^2)^(-1/2)*(-2x) + (25-x^2)^(1/2)*1]
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [-x^2(25-x^2)^(-1/2) + (25-x^2)^(1/2)]
Then, express this with positive exponent only.
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [-x^2/(25-x^2)^(1/2) + (25-x^2)^(1/2)]
Also, convert the fractional exponent to radical form.
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) - [-x^2/sqrt(25-x^2) + sqrt(25-x^2)]
So the derivative of the function simplifies to:
y'=25/sqrt(25-x^2) +x^2/sqrt(25-x^2) - sqrt(25-x^2)
y'= (x^2+25)/sqrt(25 - x^2) - sqrt(25-x^2)
y'= (x^2+25)/sqrt(25 - x^2) - sqrt(25-x^2)/1* sqrt(25-x^2)/sqrt(25-x^2)
y'= (x^2+25)/sqrt(25 - x^2)-(25-x^2)/sqrt(25-x^2)
y'= (x^2+25 - (25-x^2))/sqrt(25-x^2)
y'=(2x^2)/sqrt(25-x^2)

Therefore, the derivative of the function is y'=(2x^2)/sqrt(25-x^2) .

What was the constitutional background of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The ideas expressed in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the principles embodied in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), are certainly relevant in the decision-making process that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ultimately being passed by Congress. However, the ensuing legal battle concerning the constitutionality of this Act revolved around the interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
With the Lochner Era coming to an end during the New Deal, the Supreme Court began to expand its interpretation of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. In decisions such as Nebbia v. New York (1934), West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), and Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (1955), the Court ended the policy of economic due process that had curtailed the ability of Congress to legislate in the realm of economic activities. The Supreme Court addressed the extent of Congressional Power under the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), holding that Congress could impose national quotas on wheat growers no matter the size of the farming operation under the theory that in the aggregate all the small operations might affect the overall national market.
These decisions provide the constitutional backdrop to the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964). The owner of the Heart of Atlanta filed suit arguing that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that the Act violated the Fifth Amendment’s bar on deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law, and that the Act violated, in a twist of irony, the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude. The decision of the Court was unanimous in upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although some of the Justices had differing rationales as expressed in three concurring opinions.
The decision in Heart of Atlanta held that the passing of this aspect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation. For further information regarding the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the related constitutional backdrop, the Heart of Atlanta majority opinion written by Justice Tom C. Clark contains a well-written synopsis of the history of the Act.

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was climax of a century-long conflict between those who supported the concept of citizenship and Constitutional protection for every American, regardless of race, and those opposed to that concept.
Slavery was abolished with the passage of the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in December of 1865. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted three years, decreed that all citizens, regardless of race, were entitled to equal protection under the law.
But state and local governments, particularly, but not exclusively in the South, adopted laws, often called Jim Crow legislation, which in effect made their black populations second-class citizens.
Public facilities, such as restaurants, movie theaters and stores, were legally segregated in many Southern states and the concept of "Separate but equal" public facilities was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1896.
The High Court reversed itself on that issue in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education when it declared that separate educational facilities for blacks and white students were inherently unequal.
But the decision did little to impact other forms of discrimination.
President Kennedy proposed a major civil rights bill in 1963. Following his assassination, President Johnson took up the issue and pushed what became the Civil Rights Act through Congress despite vigorous opposition from Southern lawmakers including many of his fellow Democrats.
The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson in July of 1964. It outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or sex.
It is considered one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress.

At the heart of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the constitutional interpretation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The primary focus was on the role of states to create discriminatory Jim Crow laws that reinforced white supremacy through their "separate but equal" policies.
The Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruling dictated that states had the right to create and implement such policies. This created a social strata that was akin to the white dominance under slavery, which could be argued as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The states were creating laws that relegated African Americans to the status of second-class citizens, a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause.
Ten years prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court had ruled that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) set a precedent of the federal government ruling against discriminatory practices in all circumstances, which paved the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/civil-rights-act.htm

Toward the end of the story "Cathedral," the blind man asks the narrator to describe a cathedral. Why is the narrator unable to do so? What does his inability to do so reveal about himself?

At the end of the story "Cathedral" by Raymond Carver, the narrator is sitting with Robert, who is blind. They are watching TV together, and a program comes on which focuses on cathedrals. Suddenly, the protagonist (who is not given a name) asks Robert,

Something has occurred to me. Do you have any idea what a cathedral is? What they look like, that is? Do you follow me? If somebody says cathedral to you, do you have any notion what they’re talking about? Do you know the difference between that and a Baptist church, say?

He suddenly realizes that Robert's view of the world is generally limited to what other people tell him. Robert explains,

"I know they took hundreds of workers fifty or a hundred years to build," he said. "I just heard the man say that, of course. I know generations of the same families worked on a cathedral. I heard him say that, too."

Then, he admits that his understanding of cathedrals is very limited, and he asks the protagonist to describe a cathedral to him. The protagonist realizes how incapable he is of putting his ideas into words:

I stared hard at the shot of the cathedral on the TV. How could I even begin to describe it? . . . I stared some more at the cathedral before the picture flipped off into the countryside. There was no use.

No matter how hard he tries, he cannot put the idea of a cathedral into words. As he continues to wonder why he cannot put it into words, he explains:

"You’ll have to forgive me," I said. "But I can’t tell you what a cathedral looks like. It just isn’t in me to do it. I can’t do any more than I’ve done." The blind man sat very still, his head down, as he listened to me. I said, "The truth is, cathedrals don’t mean anything special to me. Nothing. Cathedrals. They’re something to look at on late-night TV. That’s all they are.”

Robert then asks the protagonist to draw a cathedral with him to give him a better idea of what a cathedral looks like. Though the protagonist does not understand why they are doing this together, Robert reassures him:

"Go ahead, bub, draw," he said. "Draw. You’ll see. I’ll follow along with you. It’ll be okay. Just begin now like I’m telling you. You’ll see. Draw," the blind man said.

Ironically, the blind man tells the man with sight that he will come to "see" (understand).
The story ends with the reader unsure if the protagonist ever truly gains anything from this experience. Different readers can come to different conclusions. I would suggest that the narrator is reminded of how little he sees and understands of the world and that he is reminded of his own figurative blindness. He also comes to realize that he cares about very little in his life. (This was the reason that he gave for being unable to describe the cathedrals; he did not care about them.) Robert asks him to close his eyes as they finish drawing:

"Close your eyes now," the blind man said to me. I did it. I closed them just like he said. "Are they closed?" he said. "Don’t fudge." "They’re closed," I said. "Keep them that way," he said. He said, "Don’t stop now. Draw." So we kept on with it. His fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now.

It is when the protagonist closes his eyes and becomes momentarily blind that he starts to see and understand Robert; he begins to empathize with the blind man and seems to grow in his desire to get to know him.

Is it possible for the people of a democracy to overrule the government's decisions?

The answer to that question depends upon what kind of decision is being made.  People have some recourse under some circumstances to seek an overruling of a government decision.  However, there are some government decisions that could not be overruled without voting those who made the decision out of office, recalling them, or through a revolution.  Let's go over the kinds of decisions governments make, so we can look at some ways they can be overruled.
First, enacting statutes is a form of government decision-making. In the federal government, it takes the Senate and the House to pass a bill.  There is no way to reverse this decision without a veto by the president, and even then, if there is a sufficient majority, the veto can be overridden by Congress.  This kind of decision can be fought against only by getting in touch with Congressional representatives and senators and asking that they revoke the statute just passed, by seeking a recall, or by not voting those representatives in again. This is true for declarations of war and treaties, too.  It is difficult, honestly, to imagine a revolution under any of these circumstances.
Second, the decisions of administrative tribunals and courts are another form of government-decision-making.  In either case, an appellate procedure is available to people, which can result in the overruling of the previous government decision.  Once a case reaches the United States Supreme court, though, its determination cannot be overruled except in circumstances in which Congress rewrites a statute in a way that will pass muster under the Supreme Court's ruling.
Third, the government can act in ways that can be overruled by invoking the protections of the Constitution.  For example, if I owned a newspaper and the government decided to order me to not publish some particular news, my recourse to overrule this determination would be to invoke my First Amendment right to freedom of the press, and in that case, the courts would overrule the government, too. 
Fourth, when the president signs an executive order, these can be overridden by the federal courts.  In fact, there have been a least of few suits of this nature during President Obama's administration. 
Absent a revolution, the mechanisms we have in place are somewhat limited if we seek to overrule some government action or decision.  We can let our representatives know we are unhappy.  We can recall a politician who has made decisions we do not agree with.  We can not vote again for those whom we are displeased with.  We can appeal court rulings or go to court to stop some government decisions and actions. One of the major reasons for a constitutional democracy, though, is to have a rule of law, even to overrule government decisions, so that there is no need for revolution to occur.  

Did Mary Warren know how the poppet she gave Elizabeth would be used?

Your question relates to the dramatic events in Act 2 and seems to ask whether Mary Warren was aware that the poppet she made as a gift for her employer, Elizabeth Proctor, would be used as a tool by the diabolical Abigail Williams to implicate Elizabeth as a witch. The answer, in this instance, is no. Mary made the doll in court as a gift for Elizabeth.

Mary Warren, glancing about at the avid faces: Why—I made it in the court, sir, and—give it to Goody Proctor tonight.

She also mentions that Abigail sat next to her and saw her fashion the doll and had witnessed her inserting the darning needle into the doll's belly once she had finished.
That evening, Abigail had screamed out in pain during dinner at her uncle's (the Reverend Parris) house and fell to the floor. The concerned Reverend approached her and extracted a needle from her stomach. Abigail claimed that Elizabeth had bewitched her by using the doll. Her devious act leads to the issue of a warrant for arrest against Elizabeth. She will be arrested for witchcraft if a doll is found in her possession.
When Ezekiel Cheever and Marshal Herrick arrive at the Proctor home to serve the warrant, the former is aghast to find the doll with a needle stuck in its stomach. He firmly believes that this is irrevocable proof of Elizabeth's evil. Cheever ignores Mary Warren's testimony and is intent on arresting the innocent Elizabeth. John Proctor is overcome with rage and tears up the warrant, but Elizabeth later convinces him that she should accompany the arresting officers.
John Proctor then demands that Mary should accompany him to court the next day to tell the truth. The poor girl is terrified and insists that she cannot go, because she believes that Abigail will kill her and that all the girls will turn against her. She tells John that Abigail will charge him with lechery. He, however, has only Elizabeth's interests at heart and tells Mary that both he and Abigail will be damned but that he will not allow his good wife to die for him.
The scene closes with an utterly distraught Mary Warren repeatedly sobbing that she cannot testify.

What are some current medical explanations of criminal behavior?

A major medical explanation for criminal behavior is antisocial personality disorder, more commonly known as psychopathy or sociopathy (though these are no longer medically the best terms). Antisocial personality disorder consists of a strong reward drive without the ability for empathy. People suffering from this disorder tend to be manipulative, abusive, unstable, and often charming in the single-minded pursuit of their goals. It is also extremely common for these people to be criminals. The ability to cause pain and distress without feeling guilt or remorse for their actions makes people with this disorder naturally primed for crime. Notions of right and wrong and regard for the law do not pose the same stopping forces for those with anti-social personality disorder as they would with the average person. Based on estimates of the number of individuals with anti-social personality disorder in the general population and in prisons, it is believed that over 90% of adult men with this disorder are currently in prison (or on parole or probation following criminal charges).
Other mental illnesses that strongly affect a person’s ability to empathize or maintain a stable hold on reality, such as schizophrenia, can lead to criminal behavior. These types of illness can induce hallucinations or delusions that may push the sufferers to criminal acts like murder, theft, or assault, for example.
Another point on this topic is the fact that suicide is considered a criminal act. Depression is the strongest and most common cause of suicidal thoughts and completion.
It should be noted that not all criminals are mentally ill, and not all mentally ill people are criminals; this answer only aims to discuss the ways that mental illnesses may leave people vulnerable to criminal charges or infractions of the law.
It is also important to note on this topic that suffering from a mental illness (with the exception of antisocial personality disorder) often means that someone is more likely to be the victim of crime (rather than the perpetrator), and mentally ill individuals in general should not be automatically profiled as criminals.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-in-world/201004/the-six-reasons-people-attempt-suicide

How does Chopin illustrate the role of women in nineteenth century western civilization?

"The Story of an Hour" is a very short tale by Kate Chopin that follows Mrs. Louise Mallard through an hour when she learns first that her husband has died in a train accident and then, miraculously, that he is still alive since he did not actually board the train. The intense emotions Mrs. Mallard feels over the course of the story illustrate the constraints placed upon women by the institution of marriage in the late nineteenth century.
At the beginning of the story, the narrator tells us that Mrs. Mallard has "heart trouble," so her relatives must break the news of her husband's death to her very gently. Mrs. Mallard seems to be shocked by the news and retires to a room to be alone. As she sits in the room and thinks about her loss, she looks out the window and sees all the fresh, new life blooming outside. Surprisingly, Mrs. Mallards begins to think positively about her husband's death: she thinks of herself as "Free! Body and soul free!"
Being a widow means that she will not have to devote herself to her husband any more; she can be the master of her own life. This new realization has her walking "unwittingly like a goddess of Victory" as she leaves her room. Unfortunately, when Brentley Mallard walks through the door very much alive, Louise dies "of the joy that kills." The characters in the story interpret Mrs. Mallard's death as a reaction of overwhelming happiness at the return of her husband; however, the reader knows that she is shocked and presumably upset that she will not, in fact, enjoy the freedom she so recently envisioned for herself. 
This story tells us that marriage in the late nineteenth century, when the story is set, could feel oppressive to women. The idea that she is freed from the obligations of marriage and domestic life makes Louise Mallard feel overjoyed and invigorated.

Analyze the responses of Gregor Samsa's three family members to his transformation into a giant insect in Kafka's The Metamorphosis. What do you think those actions revealed about their character? Were they good people dealing with a difficult situation? Or did their son's metamorphosis reveal something else?

After Gregor turns into a giant insect his sister Grete leaves out food for him inside his room and arranges the furniture to his liking, indicating that she still cares about his survival. Gregor's mother wants to visit him in his room, but when she catches sight of him on the ceiling she faints. Gregor’s father, on the other hand, is repulsed by his transformation from the start. Immediately after Gregor turns into a bug his father shoos him back into his room with a cane and newspaper and later he throws an apple at Gregor's back that eventually kills him. However, when the family begins to fall into poverty and cannot pay their bills any longer even Grete and Gregor's mother are no longer kind to Gregor. Grete stops leaving out high-quality food for Gregor and eventually and she says the family must get rid of Gregor in order to ensure their own survival. The family members' actions of ambivalence and disgust toward Gregor as a bug indicate that all they really care about is if he can work and provide for them. Kafka uses the family member's rejection of Gregor as a bug to reveal to the reader how his family is primarily concerned with income, economic status, and being taken care of financially. Gregor’s metamorphosis represents the inner alienation and loneliness that he felt living in a family where his worth was based only on his ability to produce income.

The Samsas' reaction to Gregor's condition runs the gamut from sympathetic to cruel. The kindest among the three is Gregor's sister, Grete, who brings him food every day. When he is unable to eat fresh and cooked food, she brings him more rotten food—not as a sign of disrespect, but because this is all he can stomach. However, fatigue and social humiliation erode her patient compassion, and eventually, Grete no longer bothers with visiting Gregor.
Mrs. Samsa's reaction is more middling. She is horrified by Gregor's transformation and briefly mourns him when he finally dies, but her compassion is minimal. She is humiliated that her son is now a roach (a fact which will have a negative effect on the Samsas' social standing should it get out). More than that, Mrs. Samsa is terrified of becoming poor, since the family no longer has Gregor's income to rely upon, which forces them to take in renters.
Mr. Samsa is by far the least sympathetic in his reaction. He is abusive toward Gregor, at one point throwing an apple at him. The apple lodges in a wound, aggravating Gregor's body and causing infections. He refers to Gregor as an "it" rather than a "he," denying him personhood and claiming that after the transformation, they are no longer morally obligated to view him as a member of the family.
In the end, it is hard to call the Samsas good people reacting poorly. They already seem to have had issues with Gregor before his transformation, and they seem to view him as a meal ticket,rather than a beloved family member. When he dies, the dominant feeling among the family is relief now that they no longer have to deal with his condition.

The Mother: Mrs. Samsa is a rather frail woman, subject to poor nerves and ailing physical health; additionally, Gregor's transformation stirs within her a battle between motherly love and disgust––she is concerned for him, yet faints when she sees him. While immediately following his transformation she is actively interested in Gregor's well-being, she slowly becomes more withdrawn from him, and by his death, is relieved that the ordeal is over. Ultimately, Mrs. Samsa's weakened mental and physical state made it exceedingly stressful for her to cope with Gregor's condition. Her reaction of relief is not necessarily indicative of a lack of love for Gregor, but more a superficial release from her inability to cope. In the end, she does show signs of sorrow and hopes one day that her son will return, further displaying her love for Gregor and suggesting that she is a good person, but with a mental incapacity to reconcile with reality.
Grete: Gregor's sister is without a doubt the most sympathetic to his transformation. Grete's sisterly love for her brother is displayed by her care for him, e.g. she takes it upon herself to take him food and find out which foods agree with his new appetite. However, as time wears on, her compassion erodes into resentment. One significant turning point in their relationship occurs when Grete tries to remove the furniture from Gregor's room to allow for more space. Gregor throws a buggy tantrum, terrifying Mrs. Samsa and causing his father to violently attack him. After this, Grete becomes less tolerable of her brother and eventually cannot bear him. She takes a job as a salesgirl and lets Gregor's care fall to the wayside. Grete had once been dependent on Gregor and appreciated her brother's sacrifice, but the transformation forced her to become more independent and she lets her brother become a distant memory.
The Father: A failed-businessman, Mr. Samsa is worn with emotional instabilities. Gregor's father pretends he cannot work, even withholding some saved money, while letting Gregor work like a dog to provide for his family. Gregor's transformation forces Mr. Samsa to begin a somewhat successful career, revealing that all along he had been perfectly capable of work and that he was using Gregor. Mr. Samsa is resentful towards Gregor's transformation because it means he has to go back to work and he consistently displays cruel disinterest and even physical violence toward Gregor.
The book reveals different things about each of the characters. It seems tiered as to whether they were good people dealing with a difficult situation––his mother fits this bill most closely, while the father is actually revealed as an exploiter, and Grete falls somewhere in between.

Gregor's parents find it hard to accept his transformation into a giant cockroach. His sister, Grete, is the most sympathetic, going into his room every day to feed him at first. She eventually grows tired of the responsibility and stops going in to clean his room, leaving it to descend into decay. Gregor's father becomes increasingly frustrated with his son, eventually throwing an apple at Gregor which lodges in his back and later kills him. Gregor's mother shows a great deal of distress on Gregor's part but for the duration of the novella does little to help him. What the responses reveal about the three family members is that they harbored a great deal of resentment for Gregor before his transformation. His parents disliked how much they had come to rely on him, while Grete was jealous of his responsibility within the family. Their responses after the transformation reveal them to be caring but neglectful, and they show relief when Gregor dies.

Who are the characters of chapter 8?

Chapter 8 is a significant one in Lyddie because it's here that the protagonist starts work at the Concord Corporation factory. An important character in this chapter is Diana Goss, who shows Lyddie the ropes in her new job. She also helps Lyddie write letters home to her family. However, Lyddie soon discovers that Diana is widely distrusted by the other workers at the factory. They see her as a trouble-maker, an agitator, someone whose tireless efforts to improve wages and conditions at the factory are counter-productive. To some of the other girls, Diana is a dangerous radical.
Nevertheless, Lyddie comes to develop a close friendship with Diana. Though initially skeptical of agitating for better pay and conditions, she eventually signs Diana's petition, but mainly to try and get her friend out of trouble.

The reader gets introduced to quite a few new characters in this chapter. Obviously, one of the characters in this chapter is Lyddie. Much of this chapter takes place in the boarding house that Mr. Bedlow took Lyddie to. He took her to this particular boarding house because Mrs. Bedlow (his sister) operates it. Lyddie spends the first night in the attic, and the next morning she meets some of the other girls that live in the boarding house and work in the mills. Lyddie meets Prudence, Amelia, and Betsy. Of those girls, Betsy, is probably the most important to Lyddie because Betsy helps Lyddie learn to value reading and education. Lyddie begins to read Oliver Twist on her own because of Betsy. The chapter ends with Mrs. Bedlow taking Lyddie to the mills for the first time. 

What is there to infer about Brom Bones' character from his actions ?

Washington Irving was one of America's earliest satirists and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", a short story set in the colonial period, observes the insularity of the early Dutch settlers of the Hudson River valley and the lengths to which they would go to ensure the purity of their community. Brom Bones is a symbolic character meant to represent the bounty of America, a young country rich in resources with strong ties to its European heritage.
It is widely expected that Brom Bones and Katrina Van Tassel, scions of wealthy Dutch-American families, will eventually marry and merge the extensive landholdings of their fathers.  Because they are young, Katrina and Brom play games with each other before they consent to settle down together to please their parents and the community at large.  When outsider Ichabod Crane comes to town and becomes the schoolteacher, Katrina's beauty and wealth capture his attention.  He courts her, and she welcomes the attention because it appeals to her vanity and makes Brom jealous.  
Brom is a flat and stereotypical young male character: hyper-masculine, brawny, reckless, and confident.  With the home field advantage, he makes short work of the effete and superstitious Ichabod, running the interloper out of town with the Headless Horseman ruse.  In the end, Brom and Katrina marry and the insularity of their Dutch-American village is preserved. Brom's actions also suggest that "simple country folk" should not be underestimated; his native cleverness enables him to prevail over the sophisticated intellectual who dares to disrupt Sleepy Hollow's way of life.

Discuss why you believe Peyton Farquhar undertakes his efforts to destroy Owl Creek Bridge in the first place.

It seems that Peyton Farquhar attempts to destroy the Owl Creek Bridge because he believes that its destruction would injure the Union war effort and aid the Confederacy. As a slave owner, "he was naturally an original secessionist and ardently devoted to the Southern cause." He didn't want to join the army, likely due to his "imperious nature"—in other words, he doesn't like to take orders—but he is interested in finding an "opportunity for distinction:" some way in which he can help the South to defeat the Union Army and retain its so-called way of life. He feels himself to be, at heart, a soldier, and he likewise believes that "all is fair in love and war."
When the apparently Confederate soldier tells him that injuring the rail lines would very seriously hinder the Union Army's progress in the South, Farquhar seems to decide to attempt to burn the bridge, as the soldier suggests is possible due to a large quantity of wood that has accumulated near it. However, because the soldier is really a Federal scout in Confederate garb, Farquhar's attack is expected, and so he is caught and executed for his crime. He is willing to risk his personal safety in order to help the South, and he does not seem to regret his decision.

Why was the Declaration of Independence written?

The Declaration of Independence was written for two reasons. First, as the name suggests, it was intended to declare the independence of Britain's North American colonies from their mother country. The colonies had been at war with Britain since April of 1775, and after much debate, the advocates for independence in the Second Continental Congress at Philadelphia had won out. The Declaration was thus a statement of the intent of these delegates, and the assemblies that chose them, to set out on their own as an independent nation. It transformed the Revolutionary War from a struggle over the rights of Englishmen to a war to free the colonies from British rule. The Declaration, however, had another major purpose. It was to state the ideological principles and the perceived British abuses that motivated the colonists in the first place. In the first part of the document, Thomas Jefferson outlines the purpose of government, which, he says, echoing John Locke, is to protect the unalienable rights of man. He goes on to say that, when governments abuse these rights, people have the right to "alter or abolish" the offending government. This, the document explains, is why the colonists took up arms, and why they are declaring independence. The document goes on to list a series of "injuries and usurpations" suffered by the colonists that, the signers asserted, justified their actions. For these reasons, the Declaration was written, signed, and promulgated throughout the colonies.