If the main character in a story struggles against the cold Arctic weather, is the conflict internal or external?

In a sense, this is a false dichotomy with respect to Jack London's story "To Build a Fire." While an external conflict is a struggle against something outside oneself and an internal conflict is a struggle against one's own emotions, desires, beliefs, or habits, often the two work together. 
In the case of "To Build a Fire," in one sense, the narrator is engaged in an extended struggle for survival against the Arctic cold. This would be an external conflict.
On the other hand, the narrative focuses to a great degree on how the cold saps the man's willpower and thus that much of his struggle is an internal one to summon up the reserves of will and character necessary for survival and how he ultimately fails.
Many of these sorts of survival stories set in the wilderness emphasize how a harsh external environment leads to people developing–or failing to develop–inner strength. 

(x-1)y' + y = x^2 -1 Solve the first-order differential equation

Given (x-1)y'+y=x^2-1
when the first order linear ordinary differential equation has the form of
y'+p(x)y=q(x)
then the general solution is,
y(x)=((int e^(int p(x) dx) *q(x)) dx +c)/e^(int p(x) dx)
so,
(x-1)y'+y=x^2-1
=> (x-1)[y' + y/(x-1)] = x^2 -1
=> y'+y/(x-1)= ((x+1)(x-1))/(x-1)
=> y'+y/(x-1)= (x+1) --------(1)
 
y'+p(x)y=q(x)---------(2)
on comparing both we get,
p(x) = 1/(x-1) and q(x)=(x+1)
so on solving with the above general solution we get:
y(x)=((int e^(int p(x) dx) *q(x)) dx +c)/e^(int p(x) dx)
=((int e^(int (1/(x-1))dx) *(x+1)) dx +c)/e^(int(1/(x-1)) dx)
first we shall solve
e^(int (1/(x-1)) dx)=e^(ln|x-1|) = |x-1|  
When x-1<=0 then ln(x-1) is undefined , so  
e^(int(1/(x-1)) dx)=x-1
so
proceeding further, we get
y(x) =((int e^(int (1/(x-1))dx) *(x+1)) dx +c)/e^(int(1/(x-1)) dx)
=((int (x-1)*(x+1)) dx +c)/(x-1)
=((int (x^2-1) ) dx +c)/(x-1)
= (x^3/3 -x  +c)/(x-1)
 
y(x)=(x^3/3 -x +c)/(x-1)

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 1, 1.1, Section 1.1, Problem 22

List the numbers in the following set that are elements of each set.

$\displaystyle \left \{ -8, - \sqrt{5}, -0.6, 0, \frac{3}{4}, \sqrt{3}, \pi, 5, \frac{13}{2}, 17, \frac{40}{2} \right \}$

a.) Natural Numbers

Based from the given set, the natural numbers are $5,17$ and $\displaystyle \frac{40}{2}$ or $20$.

b.) Whole Numbers

Based from the given set, the whole numbers are $0,5,17$ and $\displaystyle \frac{40}{2}$ or $20$.

c.) Integers

Based from the given set, the integers are $-8,0,5,17$ and $\displaystyle \frac{40}{2}$ or $20$.

d.) Rational Numbers

Based from the given set, the rational numbers are $\displaystyle -8,-0.6, \frac{3}{4},5, \frac{13}{2},17$ and $\displaystyle \frac{40}{2}$.

e.) Irrational Numbers

Based from the given set, the irrational numbers are $- \sqrt{5}, \sqrt{3}$ and $\pi$.

f.) Real Numbers

Based from the given set, all are real numbers.

How do we expect Red Chief to react to the kidnapping? How does it affect the reader?

Johnny is totally happy with being kidnapped. He is having lots of fun. In fact, when the kidnappers ask him whether he would like to go home, he says “Aw, what for? I don’t have any fun at home. I hate to go to school. I like to camp out. You won’t take me home again, will you?” Though initially, he had put up a big fight while Bill and Sam carried him away from his home, later on, he likes the idea of living in a cave with the freedom to do whatever he wants. He plays make-believe cowboy and indian games and calls himself Red Chief, “the terror of the plains.” He calls Bill "Old Hank," whom he intends to scalp at daybreak according to the game’s script. He calls Sam "Snake-eye," who is to be “broiled at the stake” at daybreak. He continuously bullies Bill, even wanting to really scalp him as per the game. He talks endlessly and is everywhere all at once. His pranks weary the two men so much so that they want him out of their hands as soon as possible.
The reader expects Johnny to want to go back home. Since he is only a boy of ten, one would expect him to miss his family and friends and really dislike the idea of being away from home and with strangers. Actually, this is the kind of reaction that the kidnappers also expected him to have. However, Johnny is no ordinary ten-year-old boy. He turns the tables on the kidnappers so that it is them who finally pay a ransom to Johnny’s father to have him out of their hands.

What literary element is being used in each quotation below, and what effects do these elements have on the reader? 1.) From the The Faerie Queene (by Spenser): "The joyous day gan early to appear, / And faire Aurora from the deawy bed/" 2.) From To His Coy Mistress (by Marvell): "Now, therefore, while the youthful hue / Sits on thy skin like morning dew/"

The first quotation makes use of a classical literary allusion, and makes us think of the dawn is more than a natural phenomenon: It is a goddess who helps ensure the knight's victory.
The second makes use of a simile that evokes several meanings, including the idea that a youthful appearance is fleeting.
I explain and develop these points below.
1. Classical allusion: Spenser's words allude to Aurora, the goddess of the dawn.
This quote is taken from Book I, Canto XI. For background, consider what has been recounted just before these lines. The knight has fallen for a second time, but luckily he has landed in a balm that has flowed from sacred tree. The dragon "durst not approach" because the life-giving force of the balm is anathema to it. So the fight comes to a temporary standstill, and night falls.  
The balm is healing the knight's wounds as he sleeps. But Una is still understandably frightened for him. The night is intrinsically worrisome, "noyous," or afflicting. And so she keeps watch, prays, and waits "for joyous day."
The next lines are the lines in question. Spenser tells us that dawn arrives in a poetic fashion -- he alludes to the classical goddess Aurora. She brings light by awakening, rising from her dewy bed, climbing into her chariot, and riding across the sky to

"chase the chearlesse darke / with merry note her loud salutes the mounting larke."

Note that Spenser could have chosen to tell us about the arrival of daylight in purely naturalistic terms. That would have contributed to the feeling that the knight and Una face the dragon alone. But instead he's conjured up the image of a pleasant goddess who intervenes and chases aware the gloom "with merry note." The effect is to make us feel that Una and the knight aren't alone. There are other, supernatural beings on their side, beings that represent good cheer.
2. Simile: Marvell's narrator is comparing a woman's youth to a fleeting characteristic of the morning.
This quotation comes at the beginning of the last stanza, and we can appreciate Marvell's use of the simile better if we consider what leads up to it.
The narrator begins the poem by considering what life would be like if he didn't have to worry about the passage of time. He could spend hundreds of years praising his mistress's beauty.
But in the second stanza, he notes the inexorable reality. Though his mistress might deserve this timeless state of affairs, it isn't going to happen. Her beauty will fade, and they'll both die. Her "quaint honor" -- her resistance to go to bed with him -- will "turn to dust," and his lust will turn to ashes.
He's expressing the age old argument for putting propriety aside and indulging in a sexual affair: Time is running out. We should grab happiness while we can. What will our concerns matter after we're dead and gone?
So when Marvell finally presents us with the quote about youth and dew, he's chosen a simile that emphasizes the fleeting nature of youth. Furthermore, his choice suggests that youth is a mere appearance (a "hue"), something superficial that sits on the skin. Dew appears on a leaf purely as a function of the time of day: We can't take credit for it, nor can we can't change its inevitable disappearance. The dew, the youthful veneer, fades and we are left with the slow decay of what's underneath. Marvell's simile suggests the image that his mistress is in the morning of her life, and that the passing of time will soon dry up her youthful appearance -- an image that echoes his earlier references to the lovers' qualities being reduced to "dust" and "ashes."
Some might think that the reference to a "youthful hue" is itself a kind of metaphor, because youth is a physical state rather than a color. But the English of this era had a highly developed set of cultural beliefs about various shades of skin, and often characterized youthful skin as rosy. So I don't think we can be sure that Marvell is being entirely metaphorical.
 

What social satire is depicted in the play The Way of the World?

As the title indicates, the play satirizes or pokes fun at "the way of the world" regarding marriage: in the world Congreve depicts, money rules over true love.
Mirabell and Millamant, for example, represent true love, but money stands in the way of their entering into a marriage based on mutual esteem. Further, Mirabell knows that he and Millamant can't live on air and that Lady Wishfort controls much of Millamant's fortune, so he has to resort to stratagems to bend Lady Wishfort to his will in order to live in the style he wishes. Fainfill, meanwhile, cynically marries for money so that he can keep his lover in style on the side.
It's unclear precisely what Congreve's take on the balance between love and money is. Nevertheless, it is clear that he sees a marriage based on love, rather than money, as an impossible romantic fantasy. On the other hand, Congreve uses Fainfall to critique an utterly cynical approach to marriage as nothing more than a financial transaction in which cheating on the side is an expectation. In an ideal world, Congreve's message seems to be, money and mutual esteem would join together to create the perfect marriage. In the meantime, love stumbles along as well as it can in money's shadow: as Mrs. Marwood says, an imperfect love is better than none.

The Way of the World is a Restoration comedy, which deals with the physical love in abundance. In terms of the delineation of love and marriage Congreve is superior to other writers such as Etherege, Dryden, Wycherley and Vanbrugh.
In this comedy, we can find a realistic portrayal of the contemporary society where family members cheat each other, men and women are engaged in many affaires. In the story, Mirabell is in love with Millament but he has an affair with Mrs. Fainall. She has sexual relation with Mirabel but to save her family from social disgrace she married Mr. Fainall.
Mr. Fainall also has an illicit affair with Mrs. Marwood. They have an aim to usurp the wealth of Lady Wishfort. But Mrs. Marwood also threats Mr. Fainall to reveal their affair thus turns him into deep trouble.
The proviso scene is very famous because it brings out many traits of society. Millament is very conscious of her relationship with Mirabell. They create a kind of mutual understanding before marriage to avoid the adverse circumstances after marriage. Millament is very honest in her love.
On the other hand, Lady Wishfort has deep desire for marriage in spite of her old age. Previously, she had an affair with Mirabell; that’s why she has not given consent and wealth to Millamants marriage with Miabell. Now, She wants to impress Sir Rowland. But Rowland is actually the servant of Mirabell who tries to accomplish her thirst of marriage so that Mirabell can marry with Millamant. Thus Congreve presents the eccentric behavior of the society.
Congreve here presents the scenes like Chocolate Houses, St James Park, play houses where these scandals are the main gossip.
In the conclusion, we may say that Congreve very dexterously portray the contemporary society and makes it satire as well as a comedy.

In The Way of the World, Congreve’s comedy of manners paints a humorous critique of the deceit and dishonesty which have become normalized aspects of society, especially with respect to the concept of marriage. Fainall and his wife are examples of Congreve’s satire of unfaithfulness in marriage. Fainall, a character who cheats on his wife with Marwood, is given the line “I am a . . . rank husband . . . all in the way of the world.” This line illustrates Fainall’s belief that deceit is tolerable, since this is simply how the world is—a “way of the world.” In fact, Fainall wonders why “cuckoldom” should “be a discredit, being derived from [marriage].” This is a humorous line; Fainall suggests that the root cause of unfaithfulness is marriage, and, if it is part and parcel of marriage, then it follows that unfaithfulness should not in fact be considered a “discredit”—unfaithfulness is simply part of marriage!
As a counter-example to Congreve’s satirization of Fainall’s marriage, in which Fainall considers that unfaithfulness is a normal aspect of marriage, Congreve depicts Mirabell and Millamant’s marriage in a positive light. When Mirabell realizes that deceit won’t win Millamant over, Mirabell breaks the “way of the world”—dishonesty—and confesses everything, including his previous schemes, in order to win her over. In this sense, The Way of the World is a satire which criticizes the contemporary society of Congreve’s time for deceit and dishonesty at the same time that it shows us how to move past the behaviors he satirizes.

Congreve’s Restoration comedy, which focuses on the obstacles Mirabell and Millamant must surmount in order for them to marry, satirizes the values held by the upper class at the time, particularly those related to financial gain and status obtained through an advantageous marriage. Although romantic love does exist in the play, love for its own sake seems nothing more than a foolish, sentimental notion, especially when it is overshadowed so much by the need for economic gain. Examples of this include Lady Wishfort’s desire to control Millamant’s dowry, Fainall’s money-grubbing scheme, and his marriage to support his mistress. Even marital arrangements between servants hinged on a cash exchange.
The Way of the World may also be viewed as a clash between old and new values. Lady Wishfort embodies traditional Restoration attitudes, while Millamant’s insistence upon a prenuptial contract depicts an emergence of female power and independence.

lim_(x->-oo) cschx Find the limit

Given,
lim_(x->-oo) cschx
= lim_(x->-oo) (2/(e^x -e^(-x)))
as x -> to negative infinity e^x -> 0 and e^-x tends to negative infinity
so,
lim_(x->-oo) (2/(e^x -e^(-x))) = lim_(x->-oo) (2/(0 -(-oo))) = 0

Describe three of the goals of the “Big Four” powers at the Paris Peace Conference. How did some of the territorial ambitions of Japan, France, and Britain (among others) work out at the peace negotiations?

In 1919 the Paris Peace Conference was called to officially negotiate the terms for the end of World War I. While dozens of countries sent ambassadors, the "Big Four" led the conference and were central in negotiating the terms that would eventually be written into the Treaty of Versailles. The Big Four consisted of US President Woodrow Wilson, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando. In general the purpose of the conference was to establish the peace terms to end the war and form a new postwar world. Leaders at the conference also wanted to ensure that another world war of this scale, magnitude, and destruction would never again occur. In his Fourteen Points, an outline for the postwar world, Woodrow Wilson proposed a League of Nations that would arbitrate disputes between nations and serve as an international peacekeeping agency, much like today's United Nations. Despite being Wilson's idea, the US never joined the League of Nations. In addition to assuring postwar peace, Great Britain, France, and Italy wanted to punish Germany for, in their view, starting the war. They demanded not only reparations in the form of payments for the destruction caused by the war, but also military disarmament of Germany to weaken the country and prevent aggression. They also each had territorial ambitions. Britain and France coveted land in the oil-rich Middle East, and they also wanted to deprive Germany of its colonies and form new buffer states in Europe to further protect against German power.
In order to address these territorial ambitions, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations formed a mandate system that distributed former territories and colonies among the major powers, allowing them to oversee and essentially control the territories until they were deemed "fit" to govern themselves. Wilson opposed mandates for the US and instead wanted the League of Nations as a whole to administer former German colonies until they were ready for self-government. However, he was outnumbered by the other powers. Under the mandate system, Iraq and Palestine were assigned to Great Britain, while Syria and Lebanon were assigned to France. The resource rich region of Alsace-Lorraine was also taken from Germany and awarded to France.
In addition to losing much of its territory, Germany was forced to pay $32 billion in reparations and to accept all responsibility for the war. Germany was also required to reduce the size of its army and navy. Japan and Italy were also slighted in the treaty negotiations. Japan demanded a racial equity clause and equal standing in the League of Nations, both of which demands were rejected. Japan did, however, gain territory in China, leaving many Chinese angry. At the start of the war, Italy had been promised the Adriatic Coast; however, after the war this region was instead formed into a new country, Yugoslavia. The conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, especially those imposed on Germany, led to increasing political and territorial conflict in the 1920s and 1930s, eventually leading to the outbreak of World War II.

In the book Outliers: The Story of Success, Gladwell says, "to say that garment work was meaningful is not to romanticize it." What does he mean by that?

The analysis of the Jewish garment industry in New York is the subject of Chapter Five, “The Three Lessons of Joe Flom.” Here Gladwell shows that the reason so many children of immigrant garment workers become lawyers and doctors is that they had the benefit of the Jewish experience; they were born in the early 1930s; and they saw their parents and grandparents reap the benefits of meaningful work. One of the main stories is about Louis and Regina Borgenicht: immigrants who created their own business making and selling aprons before the turn of the last century. They became successful, but only because they were diligent at sewing and marketing their pieces. They couldn’t just sit back and let anyone else do the work for them: or at least, not at first. Gladwell says that in order for people to feel as though their work is satisfying, it must have three qualities: “autonomy, complexity, and a connection between effort and reward.” The garment workers’ path was not an easy one, and not one that should be romanticized. We can’t assume that every aspect of it was simple and wonderful and came out perfectly, every time. But with experience and over the course of some years, its immigrant originators were able to profit from it, both financially and emotionally.

How does D.H. Lawrence build an atmosphere of gloom at the opening of "The Rocking-Horse Winner"?

"The Rocking-Horse Winner" is a peculiar short story by D.H. Lawrence about a young boy, Paul, trying to lessen his family's financial strain by betting on horse-races. Paul's bets are generally good, and he wins a lot of money, which he then gives to his mother to pay down her debts. Alas, the money is never enough to satisfy his mother, who lives far beyond her means; so Paul continues to bet at greater odds to win larger sums. He becomes obsessed with horse-racing, and by the end of the story he has won £80,000 (about $6.5 million in today's money). However the stress of trying to win more and more money makes Paul ill, and eventually kills him.
There is a supernatural element to this story: Paul determines which horses to bet on by riding his rocking-horse until he has a kind of psychic revelation about the winner of the next big race, which he calls "being sure." The physical effort of rocking back and forth takes a toll on Paul, who must rock longer and harder each time he "races" his rocking-horse in order to "be sure." By the climax of the story, Paul "hardly hear[s] what [is] spoken to him, he [is] very frail, and his eyes [are] really uncanny." Upon winning his biggest bet (at 14-to-1) in the Derby, he collapses from exhaustion, and dies shortly thereafter.
Despite the supernatural element, the story is really the tragedy of how selfish parents unwittingly burden their children with their needs and frustrations. Paul's family is outwardly well-to-do, but inwardly dysfunctional. The mother "started with all the advantages, yet she had no luck." She does not love her husband, and she does not love her children; in fact,

she herself knew that at the centre of her heart was a hard little place that could not feel love, no, not for anybody.

Her children know she does not love them, and although they look like a happy, well-off family,

...they felt always an anxiety in the house. There was never enough money ... There was always the grinding sense of the shortage of money, though the style was always kept up...
And so the house came to be haunted by the unspoken phrase: There must be more money! There must be more money! The children could hear it all the time though nobody said it aloud. They heard it at Christmas, when the expensive and splendid toys filled the nursery. Behind the shining modern rocking-horse, behind the smart doll’s house, a voice would start whispering: “There must be more money! There must be more money!” And the children would stop playing, to listen for a moment. They would look into each other’s eyes, to see if they had all heard. And each one saw in the eyes of the other two that they too had heard. “There must be more money! There must be more money!”
Yet nobody ever said it aloud. The whisper was everywhere, and therefore no one spoke it. Just as no one ever says: “We are breathing!” in spite of the fact that breath is coming and going all the time.

This is the atmosphere in which the children live, and it's this atmosphere Paul is trying to buy his way out of with his winnings. His mother is bitter and cold, but he thinks maybe if he can quiet "the whisper" in the house, everything will get better.

How does Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem "Kubla Khan" use individualism?

Coleridge's poem expresses a very dreamy, imaginative vision that is characteristic of the Romantic emphasis on individualism and the importance of one person's unique perceptions. Coleridge prefaces the poem with the description, "Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment," conveying to the reader that the vision conveyed in the poem came to him in a dream and has all the confusing and imaginative symbolism of a dream.
The vastness and eeriness of the landscape and the solitary people in the poem enhance the idea of the lone individual. The poem begins by describing Xanadu and its surroundings, including the river Alph and "caverns measureless to man," conveying a sense that humans are lost and alone in the vastness of nature and highlighting the idea that the individual is alone in this dreamy and vast landscape. The palace is "With walls and towers...girdled round," suggesting that the people in the tower are isolated individuals, cut off from the rest of the world. In the second stanza, Coleridge describes a "deep romantic chasm" that is "enchanted" where a woman cries out for her lover. Here, the earth is strange and unpredictable, as it it is described as breathing in "fast thick pants." The earth offers no comfort or sense of mastery to the lone people who populate it.
In the third stanza, an unnamed narrator describes an idiosyncratic vision of a woman he imagines with a dulcimer in a way that attempts to replicate a dream that only he can understand. The third stanza enhances the individualism of the poem by conveying a strange vision that involves an Abyssinian maid and a strange creature with "flashing eyes...floating hair!" These cryptic and disconnected visions come from the narrator's fervid imagination and highlight the idea that this poem comes from a very individual vision of the world. The narrator does not attempt to bring logic to these disconnected visions; he instead presents them as the product of an individual imagination that only makes complete sense to the person who dreamed them up, highlighting the importance of the individual in creation.

Why does Frederick Douglass feel Reconstruction failed?

Political leader, writer, and abolitionist Frederick Douglass advocated for equal rights among all Americans, both black and white. He believed the Reconstruction period from 1865–1877 failed because the four million freed slaves in the South were not afforded the freedom and equality they rightly deserved. Freed black men were unsure of how to find their place in society, and many Southern white men remained hostile to them. With limited education and job opportunities, the majority of freed black men lived in poverty for decades after the war. This inequality angered Douglass, and he turned to politics in an effort to bring about change.
Douglass met with two US Presidents in an attempt to advance his political agenda. In 1863, when he was recruiting freed black men as Union soldiers, he met with President Abraham Lincoln at the White House to request the same pay and protection for black soldiers as white soldiers. Then, in 1866, he and a delegation of men met with President Andrew Johnson to support voting rights for African Americans. When President Johnson failed to address the oppression of black men, Douglass appealed to Congress.
Congress ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution during the Reconstruction period. These amendments abolished slavery, provided due process and equal protection to both black and whites, and gave African Americans the right to vote. However, it wasn’t until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, 100 years later, when African Americans were properly granted these rights. Unfortunately, Frederick Douglass never witnessed the equality he fought so hard for.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/reconstruction

Douglass felt that Reconstruction failed because even though the United States abolished slavery, conditions were still very bad for most African Americans in the country. Douglass, a former slave, was a very prominent abolitionist voice before the war. He also sought full civil rights for African Americans. While the Fourteenth Amendment gave African Americans their American citizenship and the Fifteenth Amendment granted voting rights to African American males over the age of 21, many African Americans were denied the same rights as whites in the South. Many states passed laws demanding that African Americans show proof of employment or else they could be jailed for vagrancy. Poll taxes and literacy tests, not to mention physical intimidation, kept many African Americans away from the polls. This was especially true after Reconstruction officially ended in 1877. Douglass realized that Reconstruction was a step forward, but it did not do enough, as many African Americans still lived in poverty without a viable way to better themselves after Reconstruction ended.

As the Civil War drew to a close, the Southern states were in shambles. Most of the battles had been fought in the South, so the Southerners' lands and property were in dire need of repair. Their economy was threatened, too, by the expense of war and the emancipation of the slaves. In his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in 1863, President Lincoln pardoned most of the high-ranking Southern officials, explained how the states could re-join the Union, and made certain provisions for the newly freed slaves to integrate into society.
Frederick Douglass thought that Lincoln’s Reconstruction program didn’t do enough to help the former slaves succeed. Although they’d been granted freedom, they weren’t considered full U.S. citizens, and so they were denied the right to vote. Douglass became a suffragist. He was a skilled orator, and he toured the country giving speeches which inspired many others to join his cause.
In 1870, largely due to Douglass’s work, the 15th Amendment was added to the constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Of course, this didn’t erase the problems of racism and discrimination. Douglass was a strong proponent of civil rights throughout his political career, promoting equality for African Americans, women, and immigrants.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/civilwar/recon/

Why do you think Crusoe was unhappy when he was a slave?

Slavery is a common theme in Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe himself becomes a slave owner, owning a sugar plantation in Brazil which relies on slave labor for its cultivation. Earlier in the story, Crusoe's ship is attacked by Moorish pirates. Crusoe is captured and made a slave by the pirate captain. He's not exactly thrilled at the prospect. After all, he must have some idea as to how degrading and miserable the life of a slave can be. But then Crusoe is treated quite well by his captors, performing mainly light duties aboard ship. He certainly isn't forced to experience the kind of back-breaking toil of a slave in a sugar plantation.
Yet Crusoe still yearns to be free. As a white European, he probably feels that slavery is something that should only happen to the so-called lesser races. It's shameful and undignified for a member of a privileged race to be reduced to the status of a slave. In order to regain that privileged status, then, it's necessary for Crusoe to escape. After two years of servitude, that is precisely what he does with the help of Xury, a young boy. Once they are rescued, Crusoe actually sells Xury as a slave to a Portuguese captain, who helps him to purchase a sugar plantation in Brazil. Whatever Crusoe may have felt about his own captivity, it's patently obvious that he has no moral qualms about the institution of slavery itself.

What factors led to US involvement in World War II?

When the war began, the United States had entered a period of isolationism. Americans viewed the conflict as Europe’s problem and wished to keep it that way. However, as the situation in Europe grew increasingly dire, the United States began to slowly edge toward war. The breaking point, of course, was the sudden attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. However, in retrospect, the attack may not have been such a sudden and unforeseen event. Tensions between the United States and Japan had been consistently escalating for several years before the attack.
Although the United States distrusted the USSR because of the recent communist takeover, the two nations maintained relatively sociable relations at the time. Irritated that the Japanese had moved into their backyard, the USSR began to strongly criticize the Japanese and began to posture militarily in the northern Manchuria region. Due to the United States' relatively amicable relations with both the USSR and China, it too began to publicly criticize the Japanese for their increasing aggression.
The United States cautioned Japan against further aggressive actions by threatening to cut off shipments of raw materials to the nation. This was an especially risky situation for Japan, its only source of oil and metal came from the United States, while their primary source of rubber came from the British territories in Malaya. Therefore, it would seem that the nation would have to tread lightly to avoid angering the West.
In the fall of 1940, Japan met with Nazi Germany and fascist-controlled Italy to create an alliance known as the Tripartite Pact. Under this agreement, these three nations agreed to work with and support each other in their respective countries’ efforts to create a new world order.
The United States responded by beginning to funnel money and equipment to the embattled Chinese. This aid, covered under the Lend-Lease Act, was a tool used by the United States to provide aid to friends and allies without having to directly become involved in conflict. Also receiving aid from the United States were Great Britain and the USSR as those nations struggled to fend of the growing Nazi threat in Europe.
The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, was initially a striking blow to the United States’ ability to wage war in the Pacific. The morning after the attack, the United States declared war on Japan. However, Japan had scored a tactical victory and was able to mop up what was remaining of the United States military in the Pacific, promptly taking over Guam, the Philippines, British Malaya, and many other small islands and territories in short succession.

The United States attempted to remain neutral during the initial phases of World War II, despite the increasing conflicts which were occurring in Europe.
However, they were forced into the conflict after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base in Hawaii. This attack was perpetrated by the Empire of Japan, for reasons which are still debated among historians. The main consensus is that Japan was trying to expand across the Pacific.
The attack occurred on December 7, 1941. The day after the attack, President Roosevelt formally asked Congress to declare war against Japan. From that day, the destiny of World War II changed. The United States represented a huge force, both from an economic and military point of view, which completely shifted the balances of the conflict.
The war between Japan and the United States definitely ended with the atomic bombing of Japan, which occurred on August 6 and 9, 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed; around 130,000 people died on the spot, mostly civilians. A huge number of people also died from radiation in the following months.

Based on the ideas of Mark Twain, John Stuart Mill, and Plato, why is the force of the "opinion of the many" so powerful on individuals?

According to Twain's "Corn-Pone Opinions," what drives people to engage in group think is their preoccupation with their capital--both literal and social.  To stand out from the crowd with independent thought risks rejection, a state that Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests violates our human desires for safety, love, and belonging. Ever the pragmatist, Twain recognized that people's opinions were formed by "calculation and intention." 
John Stuart Mill believed that we are all sovereign to ourselves and entitled to freedom of thought, expression, and unification with others (as long as that unification doesn't harm anyone who is a part of it).  Mill felt that there must be mechanisms to ensure that the majority doesn't oppress the minority. Mill understood that being "right" is relative and saw no problem with free thinking and discussion and embracing multiple viewpoints to move humankind closer to life's truths.
Plato was a proponent of social contracts, and his allegory of the cave suggests that it is justifiable for leaders to deceive their people because the people ultimately receive the benefits of the community.  Plato's and Mill's philosophies are fundamentally incompatible in that Plato advocated putting a minority in power and stratifying (and, arguably, infantilizing) the majority. Mill had faith in people to be rational and make their own decisions; if there were violators who hurt others, they would be censured.  
The force of the "opinion of the many" is so powerful nowadays in large part because of social media and the consumerist model that governs so many lives.  Twain's satire seems remarkably on target as people crave "likes" and "retweets" as evidence of their social capital.  Many people collect Facebook friends and LinkedIn contacts as affirmations of personal worth and professional success. Because so many businesses also rely on social media for marketing purposes, their "brand's" viability is dictated by its approval and popularity as measured by not only sales but its positioning in public media. 
To bring this discussion back to Maslow, it is arguable that the powerful force of the opinion of the many that governs so many people's lives prevents them from achieving self-transcendence, the tiniest segment at the top of his pyramid, revised in the late 1960s and explained by Maslow as "the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos." 

What are the contributions of Julius Caesar to the development of literature?

Julius Caesar wrote about his wars in Gaul and North Africa. He wrote his accounts in clear prose that is considered a model of unadulterated prosaic style in Latin literature. Caesar was a very careful stylist with an intense interest in the development of literature. He discussed literary issues during meetings with his political opponent, Marcus Tullius Cicero, a famous Roman orator, writer, and philosopher. Cicero hated him as an enemy of Roman freedom, but he still admired Caesar’s robust prose and intellect.
Caesar’s studied simplicity and apparent commitment to telling his readers the truth did not prevent him from dramatizing military events and emphasizing his own leadership and central role in them. In so doing, he sometimes ignores the contributions of others, although at other time he is generous with his praise. He also often uses stereotypes in his depiction of the struggle between Romans and Gauls, as well as in describing the conflict between Romans and Germans as a battle between discipline, virtue, and civilized order against wild impetuosity and barbarism. As a skillful writer, however, he occasionally defies his own stereotypes to recognize the courage and military valor of his opponents; this ultimately serves to emphasize the magnitude of his own victories.

Can you explain each of the five features Lenin believed characterized the latest stage of capitalist development? Why was he convinced this latest stage of capitalist development might lead to wars, depressions, and revolutions? What parts of Lenin’s analysis do you think Keynes would reject?

Lenin believed the last stage of capitalism had the following five features:
the concentration of capital into monopolies that exert a powerful control over economic life
the combination of bank and industrial capital into what he called "finance capital"
a large importance placed on exporting capital as opposed to commodities
the formation of monopolies that have international reach
the division of the world into colonies controlled by imperialist powers
Lenin felt this late stage of capitalism would lead to wars, depressions, and revolutions because the inherent boom and bust cycle of capitalism would result in economic recessions and depressions. In addition, he believed the desire of capitalist powers to control other less-developed nations would result in wars caused by imperialism. This was indeed the case when Lenin wrote this book in 1916, during World War I. These imperialist wars would result in revolution among the members of the countries that capitalist countries attempted to control, and people in the capitalist countries who were subject to the economic depressions inherent in the capitalist cycle would also be prone to revolution. John Maynard Keynes would reject the idea that capitalism necessarily leads to boom and bust cycles, as he believed the government should intervene in the economy to prevent economic depressions and protect people from the parts of the capitalist cycle that Lenin thought would result in revolution. 

I need to add 500 words to my paper contrasting the poems "America" and "New Colossus" , but can't think of what else to say. Any ideas would be appreciated. I have pasted a very rough draft of my paper below: In the poems, “America” and “New Colossus,“ experience immigrants in the United States, they differ strongly on the attitude, with Lazarus stating that the United States offered hope and an opportunity to the poor and troubled of other nations, but McKay sees America itself as staying cruel. When it comes to the authors of the two poems, they both have a different take on the United States and how they interpret it. Emma Lazarus has a German and Jewish background, whose family had prospered in New York for many generations, while Claude McKay has a Jamaican/American background who arrived in America when he was just a teenager. Lazarus perspective of the United States was, it was a place for Jews to have freedom, and where she was able to learn about her Jewish heritage, McKay’s experience was finding out how much racism and cruelty there was in the United States. “McKay arrived in South Carolina, and he was not prepared to discover a racial segregation system that “effectively denied blacks any social or civil intercourse with the white majority except as menials or supplicants. “McKay turned to writing as a way to protest against the government by creating the poem “America” (Tagirova-Daley.) Emma Lazarus wrote the poem, “The New Colossus,” but was never able to see the statue of liberty built. Emma’s poem is about her beliefs on the immigrants being welcomed by a symbol to show change. Even though Emma and Claude wrote poems symbolizing the statue of liberty, they both have a different meaning on why they had written the poems. When it comes to Claude McKay’s poem to understand “America,” it provides life to nonliving objects by stating “Although she feeds me bread of bitterness,” (1) showing that “she” is America. McKay uses plenty of similes to describe America as a “cultured hell” and “her vigor flows like tides into my blood giving me strength erect against her hate” (5-6) and even “her bigness sweeps my being like a flood” (7). McKay tries to keep his poem interesting and showing his thoughts on what he saw America as being cruel. The imagery that McKay shows in his poem is absorbing as he says in one of the lines “sinks into my throat her tigers tooth, stealing my breath of life, I will confess I love this cultured hell that tests my youth” (2-4), McKay explains in these lines on how America is destroying him. Even though McKay explains in his poem that America has both energy and power, but it is also filled with racism and just hate for African Americans. At the end of the poem McKay predicts that America will never change, as the statue will sink into the sand and decay. When it comes to the comparisons and explanations in Lazarus poem on how to understand it, even though we know both poems are talking about the United States and Statue of Liberty, they both have a completely different way of explaining the Statue of liberty. In Lazarus poem, she describes how Americas statue will be of “A mighty woman with a torch / whose flame is the imprisoned lightning,” by stating this she believes America is going to be welcoming, whereas the Colossus was used to frighten those who reached Greece. The Colossus is a bronze statue that Lazarus explains “Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, / With conquering limbs astride from land to land.” Lazarus does not come and say “Statue of Liberty “in her poem, but instead references it to “Mother of Exiles.” By calling the “Statue of Liberty “the “Mother of Exiles, “Lazarus believes that she will welcome immigrants and be a mother to them by giving them freedom in America. The most interesting lines are the ones at the end “Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. / I lift my lamp beside the golden door” (10-14). In these lines Lazarus explains that the Statue of Liberty is a representation of freedom, regardless of how tired you are, poor, or homeless, the Statue of Liberty welcomes you. When it comes to interpreting McKay and Lazarus perspective of the United Statues is different, both interpret about the promise America has, but Lazarus poem is more realistic of Americas' promise, while McKay poem interprets what America can offer. Lazarus poem using lady liberty to stand for Americas' freedom, while in the poem “The New Colossus, “lady liberty stands for conquest. Lazarus uses the lines: “From her beacon hand / Glows world wide welcome; her mild eye command / The air bridged harbor that twin cities frame” (6-8). To show how Liberty is not just a statue but also a message of welcome at the harbor between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Lazarus really indicates that Liberty is a symbol of American Freedom, that welcomes the world with open hands. In McKay’s poem, he as well interprets America has a woman, but unlike Lazarus poem, he shows that Liberty is a cruel person who “feeds me bread of bitterness” (1). McKay’s shows that America is loved, despite the “hell that tests my youth” (4). McKay does show some similes that praises lady Liberty’s appearance, such as “her vigor flows like tides into my blood “(5), and “her bigness sweeps my being like a flood” (7). McKay compares Americas being outstanding to just a marble statue which is stuck in the sands of time. While he shows how great America is, he ends his poem trying to figure out what Americas' future will hold, while Lazarus poem presents that America has a bright future. In conclusion, even though both poems have a few comparisons and are different in many ways with attitude, meaning, tone, and even what their perspectives of United States was, understanding the poems shows how greatly the United States has changed in some ways. Today we still have racism throughout the United States and even immigrants coming to live here, the Statue of Liberty has many different meanings, with many different background stories.

Part of your difficulty is that you don't really seem to have a structure in the essay, which makes it difficult to think of what to say. The main technique which will help you expand your paper is developing a clear structure and then closely researching and thinking about each section. 
First it would help if you divided the paper clearly into subheadings. Your introduction, after setting out your thesis, should include a few transition sentences describing how you will be supporting your thesis and in what order. 
Your first section, with the heading "Emma Lazarus: Themes and Context", should give a brief overview of Lazurus' background and cultural context. It should also very briefly summarize the main points in her poem about immigration.
Your next section might use the heading "Claude McKay: Themes and Context". It should discuss McKay, his island background, his early experiences in the United States, and summarize the attitude found in his poem.
Your next section might focus on literary technique. Both writers are using convention verse forms, following the traditional British models which were followed by many American poets. You might look at why they did this. Lazarus, for example, could have chosen Whitmanesque free verse, but did not,  and McKay could have delved into island tradition or African-American traditions in writing, as did many of his contemporaries in the Harlem Renaissance. Thus in a section on literary techniques you should examine how this sort of cultural assimilation reflects their visions of immigration. 
After this, you could insert one section focusing on race and then the very nice material you have on gender, followed by your material on attitudes towards America and your conclusion. Having this sort of clarity of structure, and using headings to clearly separate themes, will make adding material much easier. 
 

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 8, 8.5, Section 8.5, Problem 17

int(x^2-1)/(x^3+x)dx
(x^2-1)/(x^3+x)=(x^2-1)/(x(x^2+1))
Now let's create partial fraction template,
(x^2-1)/(x(x^2+1))=A/x+(Bx+C)/(x^2+1)
Multiply equation by the denominator,
(x^2-1)=A(x^2+1)+(Bx+C)x
(x^2-1)=Ax^2+A+Bx^2+Cx
x^2-1=(A+B)x^2+Cx+A
Comparing the coefficients of the like terms,
A+B=1 ----------------(1)
C=0
A=-1
Plug the value of A in equation 1,
-1+B=1
B=2
Plug in the values of A,B and C in the partial fraction template,
(x^2-1)/(x(x^2+1))=-1/x+(2x)/(x^2+1)
int(x^2-1)/(x^3+x)dx=int(-1/x+(2x)/(x^2+1))dx
Apply the sum rule,
=int-1/xdx+int(2x)/(x^2+1)dx
Take the constant out,
=-1int1/xdx+2intx/(x^2+1)dx
Now evaluate both the integrals separately,
int1/xdx=ln|x|
Now let's evaluate second integral,
intx/(x^2+1)dx
Apply integral substitution: u=x^2+1
du=2xdx
=int1/u(du)/2
=1/2int1/udu
=1/2ln|u|
Substitute back u=x^2+1
=1/2ln|x^2+1|
int(x^2-1)/(x^3+x)dx=-ln|x|+2(1/2ln|x^2+1|)
Simplify and add a constant C to the solution,
=-ln|x|+ln|x^2+1|+C

Why do the other children bully Margot in "All Summer in a Day"?

Ray Bradbury's short story "All Summer in a Day" is set on the planet Venus, where it rains constantly and the sun only comes out for a few hours once every seven years. The characters are a class of nine-year-old children, most of whom

had been on Venus all their lives, and they had been only two years old when last the sun came out and had long since forgotten the color and heat of it and the way it really was.

Margot is one of the children in this class, but she is different from the others, an outsider to her peer group. She's a shy girl, "very frail," like "an old photograph . . . whitened away." She is also so quiet that "if she spoke at all her voice would be a ghost." When the class bully, William, shoves her and shouts at her, she stands there passively, neither resisting nor answering him. She "[plays] no games" with the other children; even if they try to include her, "she [stands] blinking after them and [does] not follow."
All of Margot's traits—her frailty, her timidity, her silence, her passivity—are enough to make her a target for bullying by the other children, but

the biggest crime of all was that she had come here only five years ago from Earth, and she remembered the sun and the way the sun was and the sky was when she was four in Ohio.

The combination of Margot's meek, awkward personality and her enviable history as a child from Earth is more than the other children can bear. It seems deeply unfair to them that someone like Margot can remember the sun and the sky and a world without endless rain, when she is so weak and unpopular. Whenever Margot dares to say anything about the sun, the children shout "You’re lying, you don’t remember!"
On the day the story takes place, the sun is due to emerge from behind the clouds for its brief once-every-seven-years appearance. The children are all excited but also full of trepidation: they do not remember the sun, and fear today might be a disappointment.

"It was all a joke, wasn’t it?" [William] turned to the other children. "Nothing’s happening today. Is it?"

When Margot protests, "But this is the day, the scientists predict, they say, they know," William, furious to be contradicted, grabs her and orders the children to throw her in the classroom closet and lock the door. He is angry at being challenged by Margot, who is a classroom nonentity, and he seems especially angry because she has already had time in the sun, back on Earth, so she can't understand what this day means to the Venusian children. He wants to punish her for her past history on Earth and for daring to contradict him in front of the others. The children throw Margot into the closet, as directed, and Margot screams and cries and flings herself against the door, but they leave her there, uncaring.
The sun does, in fact, come out, and the Venusian children spend an awestruck two hours in total ecstasy, running outside, warm and dry, finally free of the rain and able to see the sky. Only when it starts to rain again do they remember Margot, locked in the closet:

"Will it be seven more years?""Yes. Seven." Then one of them gave a little cry. "Margot!" "What?" "She’s still in the closet where we locked her." "Margot." They stood as if someone had driven them, like so many stakes, into the floor. They looked at each other and then looked away. They glanced out at the world that was raining now and raining and raining steadily. They could not meet each other’s glances.

They feel awful shame at what they have done, and Margot, no longer screaming and crying, is once again passive and silent when the children unlock the closet door and let her out.

What do the narrator's words and actions tell you about her attitude toward taking risks?

Waverly's words and actions tell us that she is open to taking risks and that she is confident in her ability to overcome challenges.
The text reveals that Waverly doesn't allow herself to be handicapped by her ignorance for long. When her brothers defeat her in chess, she does everything in her power to educate herself about the game's intricacies. During her spare time, Waverly reads up on the game and learns how to discover the weaknesses and strengths of an opponent, how to leverage patience to her advantage, and how to devise a rational, mathematical strategy to win games.
Eventually, Waverly excels in the game, and her brothers abandon playing with her. Undeterred, Waverly takes the risk of approaching an old man at the park for a game of chess. Her risk-taking behavior pays off; the old man, Lau Po, accepts her invitation for a game. Over time, Waverly begins to add to the depth of her skills in chess. From Lau Po, she learns new strategies and tactics that eventually allow her to participate in official chess tournaments.
So, Waverly's words and actions definitely tell us that she's open to taking risks and that she's confident in her ability overcome challenges.

What figures of speech are used in act 3, scene 3 of Romeo and Juliet?

In act 3, scene 3, of Romeo and Juliet, Friar Lawrence meets with Romeo after he has killed Tybald. Their conversation is replete with figures of speech. Here are some of them.
Personification: The lines attribute human qualities to several abstract concepts. The priest says that Romeo is "wedded to calamity," and Romeo asks what sorrow wants to be his "acquaintance."
Hyperbole: In Romeo's excited state, he expresses his feelings by excessive exaggeration. He equates banishment with murder, stating that life away from Verona will be "purgatory, torture, hell itself." He speaks at length about how the flies that remain in Verona are better off than he because they will be able to touch and kiss Juliet, but he will not even be able to see her. The priest engages in some hyperbole himself, promising that eventually Romeo will return "with twenty hundred thousand times more joy than thou went’st forth in lamentation."
Puns: There are a couple of clever puns in this passage. Shakespeare plays on the sense of "doom," meaning judgment, in Romeo's line, "What less than doomsday is the Prince’s doom?" Another example from Romeo is this line: "Flies may do this, but I from this must fly."
Metaphor: Romeo tells Friar Lawrence that by telling him of his banishment, he cuts his head off with a "golden ax" that murders him. Later he compares his sentence to poison and a "sharp-ground knife." Explaining to the nurse why Romeo is lying on the floor, Friar Lawrence says that Romeo's tears have made him drunk. Friar Lawrence scolds Romeo with the following metaphorical language, which also contains puns:

"Thy tears are womanish; thy wild actsThe unreasonable fury of a beast.Unseemly woman in a seeming man,And ill-beseeming beast in seeming both!"


Simile: Romeo and the priest both use similes toward the end of the scene. Romeo compares his name to a bullet that murders Juliet. Friar Lawrence compares Romeo's foolish thoughts of suicide to a person who uses gunpowder unskillfully.

This fast-moving scene is especially powerful because of Shakespeare's liberal use of figurative language.

At the beginning of the scene, Friar Laurence greets Romeo and uses personification to comment upon his clearly stressful state:

"Affliction is enamour’d of thy parts,And thou art wedded to calamity."

Here, two abstract nouns have been given the qualities of people ("personified") to highlight Romeo's agitated frame of mind. Romeo's reply also uses the same figure of speech:

"What sorrow craves acquaintance at my hand, That I yet know not?"

The friar informs Romeo that he's been banished from Verona for killing Tybalt. Instead of being relieved at his being spared the death penalty, Romeo is crestfallen; banishment will keep him apart from his beloved Juliet. He uses a metaphor to describe how painful it is to be apart from her. Verona, where she lives, is depicted as heaven, implying not just that she is an angel, but also that Romeo's banishment from the city means that he's in a living hell without her:

"Tis torture, and not mercy. Heaven is here,
Where Juliet lives; and every cat and dogAnd little mouse, every unworthy thing . . . 
There is no world without Verona walls,
But purgatory, torture, hell itself."

This is also an example of hyperbole. When the friar informs Romeo of his sentence, he uses a parallelism:

"Not body's death, but body's banishment."

Both clauses have the same grammatical structure. They are parallel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What does Hermes use his wand for in book 5 of The Odyssey?

When Zeus commands Hermes to visit Calypso and relay the command to let Odysseus go, Hermes gets ready to set out at once. “He took the wand with which he puts to sleep / or wakes the eyes of any man he chooses.” It is an important tool for completing his messenger errands. This is evident to Calypso when she greets Hermes upon his arrival because she immediately asks him, “Hermes, my honoured and welcome guest, / why have you come here with your golden wand?” She sees the wand almost as a threat.
When Hermes reveals that Zeus has ordered her to send Odysseus off, she complains that the gods are envious that a she and a mortal man cherish each other. However, Calypso realizes that no one can resist an order from Zeus, so she agrees to give Odysseus up. Hermes’ reply is “Yes, send him away. / Think of Zeus's rage. He may get angry / and make things hard for you in days to come.” With this veiled threat, he leaves, and Calypso keeps her word, sending the reluctant Odysseus off with advice to help him reach home.
Although we never actively see Hermes use his wand, the role it plays in this scene is unmistakable. We are told that Hermes can use it to “wake” any man, and Odysseus has surely been asleep to his true goal and purpose while on Ogygia under Calypso’s influence. Hermes himself never even meets with Odysseus, yet he accomplishes Zeus’s task. All he needs to do, it seems, is let Calypso get sight of that wand, so she follows the order. She knows that with the wand, Hermes can make it happen anyway. Perhaps she would rather send Odysseus off of her own accord, rather than have him taken from her.
https://www.denic.de/service/transit/informationsseite/

How do you think weak and sickly Lady Madeline escapes from the copper and stone tomb in "The Fall of the House of Usher"?

I will give you two theories on this.  One is that the whole thing is in the narrator’s head and the comments about how she seemed to be alive made him imagine her coming out of the tomb.   The other option is that she was just so angry about how she was buried alive that she mustered up the strength to push her way out.  After all, the lid was not tight because they are the ones who screwed in the lid.
To say that Roderick is not in his right mind is an understatement.  The narrator really does not seem to know what he walked into when he went to that house.  He hasn’t seen Roderick for ages.  They were childhood friends.  He came because Roderick asked him to, and he found himself stepping into a nightmare.
The doctor did not know what either Roderick or Madeline were suffering from; according to the narrator he “wore a mingled expression of low cunning and perplexity.”  When Madeline died, Roderick’s reaction was odd to say the least.  He wanted his sister entombed beneath the house.  There, the narrator says she seems to look alive still.

The disease which had thus entombed the lady in the maturity of youth, had left, as usual in all maladies of a strictly cataleptical character, the mockery of a faint blush upon the bosom and the face, and that suspiciously lingering smile upon the lip which is so terrible in death. 

This is one of the hints that foreshadows the fact that she is alive, in addition to the fact that she is being entombed there and not somewhere else.  She almost seems healthy.  You can imagine that she might have pulled together enough anger and resentment to pull herself out of the tomb and kill her brother.  Roderick seemed to think it was possible.

Not hear it? — yes, I hear it, and have heard it. Long — long — long — many minutes, many hours, many days, have I heard it — yet I dared not — oh, pity me, miserable wretch that I am! — I dared not — I dared not speak! We have put her living in the tomb!

Maybe it is the twin bond, and Roderick knew that she was still coming.  The whole thing is creepy, and maybe the creepy house and Roderick’s bizarre behavior made the whole story a figment of the narrator’s imagination.  It could have been a nightmare.

In Sophocles's view, what role do the gods play in man's destiny? I am also supposed to reference the chorus and their view on the order of the universe.

Most would argue that Sophocles views the gods as in complete control of a man’s destiny. The prophecy from the gods drives the entire play. While characters spend their lives trying to defy it or prove it wrong, every one of their actions actually perpetuates the prophecy; it is impossible to escape. Even so, Oedipus believes he can escape it and take matters into his own hands. When he first learns the curse on Thebes is related to Laius’s murder, he takes it upon himself to solve Thebes's problems rather than seek the help of the gods. Later, when he starts to learn more information about his past, his pride swells and he refuses to accept that he might be headed for demise. He says “I am the child of luck; I cannot be dishonored. . . How could I not be glad to know by birth?” Though Jocasta warns him to stop searching for information, his desire to know his past blinds him. Still, this knowledge does not change the fate that the gods have in store for him. Whether he knows his origins or not, his fate will be the same. In his mind, though, the information he finds will please him and will show the error in the gods’ prophecy.
The chorus is aware of the danger of Oedipus’s desire to prove the prophecy wrong, and where Oedipus seems to disregard their power (aside from asking them about the curse), the Chorus seeks their assistance and recognizes their power. They warn of what will happen if Oedipus continues on his path to defy the prophecy:

The tyrant is the child of prideWho drinks from his great sickening cupRecklessness and vanity,Until from his high crest headlongHe plummets to the dust of hope

Essentially, the chorus here predicts the tragic downfall of Oedipus, who is brought to ruin by his pride.

College Algebra, Chapter 1, 1.6, Section 1.6, Problem 62

Solve the nonlinear inequality $\displaystyle \frac{3+x}{3-x} \geq 1 $. Express the solution using interval notation and graph the solution set.

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{3+x}{3-x} & \geq 1\\
\\
\frac{3+x}{3-x} - 1 & \geq 0 && \text{Subtract } 1\\
\\
\frac{3+x}{3-x} - \left( \frac{3-x}{3-x} \right) & \geq 0 && \text{Common Denominator}\\
\\
\frac{3+x-3+x}{3-x} & \geq 0 && \text{Simplify}\\
\\
\frac{2x}{3-x} & \geq 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The factors on the left hand side are $2x$ and $3-x$. These factors are zero when $x$ is 0 and 3 respectively. These numbers divide the real line into intervals
$(-\infty, 0),(0,3),(3,\infty)$




From the diagram, the solution of the inequality $\displaystyle \frac{2x}{3-x} \geq 0$ are
$[0,3)$

How does The Prince symbolize the humanist revival of Greek and Roman texts and promote secular models?

Machiavelli was a true child of the Renaissance. He was a thoroughgoing humanist who looked fondly to antiquity for models of learning, wisdom and statesmanship. The Prince stands as a monument to the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman texts. Yet Machiavelli was also a humanist in the broader sense in that he set forth a vision of political philosophy uninfluenced by prevailing standards of Christian morality. Indeed, it was this feature of his magnum opus that made Machiavelli's name notorious for centuries.
Both senses of the word humanism coalesce in how Machiavelli understands human nature. Prior to Machiavelli, political philosophers, in keeping with their religious convictions, tended to deal with people as they ought to be, judging political actors by high moral standards inherited from the Christian tradition.
Machiavelli's whole approach to the matter is completely different. He takes people as he finds them, as they actually are. If you want to give sound political advice to a prince, then you need to deal with a real world, not an ideal one. And in the real world politics is a messy business. Lying, cheating, stealing, repression, subterfuge and brutality are just some of the more unpleasant characteristics of everyday political life. If a prince wants to get on, if he wants to keep hold of his territory, then he needs to learn the rules of the political game, and fast. And if this means acting with utter ruthlessness, then so be it.
After all, this is what the Romans did. They understood the dictates of politics; they knew what had to be done to keep their territorial integrity intact and suppress rival powers. At no point did they allow themselves to be seduced by some high-minded ideal of statecraft. Indeed, it's telling that the Roman Empire only really began to collapse when its ruling classes embraced Christianity.
It's fair to say that Machiavelli has had something of a bad press down the centuries. His cynical, brutally realistic take on politics has been held responsible for giving succor to every tinpot tyrant, dictator and despot ever since. But beneath its superficially callous exterior there beats a profoundly humanist heart. For Machiavelli in The Prince the security and stability of the state are of paramount importance. Yet this is not an end in itself; it is a means to a much higher, and more morally elevated end. That end is the flourishing of each and every human being. It is difficult to think of a vision more in keeping with the spirit of the Renaissance.
 

Is CH_4 + 2O_2 = CO_2 + 2H_2O a balanced equation? It seems to have too many oxygen atoms on the right of the equation to me.

This equation seems completely balanced to me. Let's figure out if this is true.
For an equation to be a balanced one, the quantity of atoms of each type must be the same on the left side and on the right side. Do not forget that an index n under atom in a formula means that this molecule has n atoms of that type.
There are three types of atoms in our reaction: C, H, and O. Let's start from O.
There are 0 oxygen atoms in CH_4, 2*2 oxygen atoms in two molecules of O_2, 2 in CO_2 and 2 in two molecules of H_2O. So, we have 0 + 2*2 = 4 oxygen molecules at the left side and 2 + 2 = 4 at the right one. Balanced.
For C, we have 1 + 0 = 1 + 0, also true. For H, 4 + 0 = 0 + 2*2, true. As a whole, the equation is balanced.

How does the rhyme scheme in first two quatrains differ from last two quatrains in" The Garden Of Love"?

The question seems to suggest that "The Garden of Love" by William Blake is a four stanza poem. The poem is a three stanza poem, and each stanza is a quatrain. The question does ask how the rhyme scheme of the first two stanzas is different than the following stanza, and that is an accurate question. The first two quatrains have an ABCB rhyme scheme. This means that the ends of lines 2 and 4 rhyme with each other. The second stanza follows this same pattern if taken by itself. If a reader compares stanza 2 to stanza 1, then line 3 of the second stanza rhymes with line 1 of the first stanza. The final stanza drops the rhyming completely. It is an ABCD quatrain in terms of rhyme scheme when looking at the ends of the lines. The final two lines of the poem contain internal rhymes. Blake rhymes "gowns" with "rounds" and "briars" with "desires."
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45950/the-garden-of-love

College Algebra, Chapter 4, 4.3, Section 4.3, Problem 56

If $P(x) = x^4 + 3x^3 - 16x^2 - 27x + 63$. Use the factor theorem to show that $x - c$ is a factor of $P(x)$ for $c = 3$ and $c = -3$.

If $P(3) = 0$, then $x - 3 = 0$, so $x - 3$ is a factor and if $P(-3) = 0$, then $x + 3 = 0$, so $x + 3$ is a factor. So using synthetic division twice







We see that


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

P(x) =& x^4 + 3x^3 - 16x^2 - 27x + 63
\\
\\
P(x) =& (x - 3)(x + 3)(x^2 + 3x - 7)
\\
\\
\text{ or } &
\\
\\
P(x) =& (x -3)(x + 3) \left( x - \frac{3 + \sqrt{37}}{2} \right) \left( x - \frac{3 - \sqrt{37}}{2} \right)

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 9, 9.3, Section 9.3, Problem 8

1/3+1/5+1/7+1/9+1/11+..........
The series can be written as,
1/(2*1+1)+1/(2*2+1)+1/(2*3+1)+1/(2*4+1)+1/(2*5+1)+.........
Based on the above pattern we can write the series as,
sum_(n=1)^oo1/(2n+1)
The integral test is applicable if f is positive, continuous and decreasing function on the interval [k,oo) where k>=1 and a_n=f(x) . Then the series converges or diverges if and only if the improper integral int_k^oof(x)dx converges or diverges.
For the given series a_n=1/(2n+1)
Consider f(x)=1/(2x+1)
Refer to the attached graph of the function. From the graph we can see that the function is positive, continuous and decreasing on the interval [1,oo)
We can also determine whether function is decreasing by finding the derivative f'(x) such that f'(x)<0 for x>=1
We can apply the integral test, as the function satisfies the conditions for the integral test.
Now let's determine whether the corresponding improper integral int_1^oo1/(2x+1)dx converges or diverges.
int_1^oo1/(2x+1)dx=lim_(b->oo)int_1^b1/(2x+1)dx
Let's first evaluate the indefinite integral int1/(2x+1)dx
Apply integral substitution:u=2x+1
=>du=2dx
int1/(2x+1)dx=int1/u(du)/2
Take the constant out and use common integral:int1/xdx=ln|x|
=1/2ln|u|
Substitute back u=2x+1
=1/2ln|2x+1|+C where C is a constant
int_1^oo1/(2x+1)dx=lim_(b->oo)[1/2ln|2x+1|]_1^b
=lim_(b->oo)1/2[ln|2b+1|-ln|2(1)+1|]
=oo-ln3/2
=oo
Since the integral int_1^oo1/(2x+1)dx diverges, we conclude from the integral test that the series diverges.

Who are the murderers of Mr. Barnett?

In Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, T.J., R.W., and Melvin go to the mercantile to get the pearl-handled pistol. Although the mercantile is closed when they arrive, the Simms brothers decide to go in and get the pistol anyway. If Mr. Barnett sees them, they can simply say they needed the pistol right away but would pay for it on Monday.
Things do not go as planned. T.J. enters through a window. As he opens the door for the Simms brothers, T.J. notices they are wearing masks. This leads him to believe that the brothers are there for more than just the pistol. After getting the pistol, R.W. and Melvin attempt to break a lock on a cabinet to gain access to the cash box inside. R.W. hits the lock with an axe and the noise causes Mr. Barnett and his wife to investigate. They discover the boys in the store and after a brief scuffle, R.W. hits Mr. Barnett on the head. Mr. Barnett is only injured at the time but later dies as a result of his injury.

The Simms brothers, R.W. and Melvin, goad the characteristically foolish T.J. into breaking into Mr. Barnett's store—the Barnett Mercantile—to get the gun that he wants. If he's caught in the act he's to say that he was going to come back the next day and pay for the gun. T.J. sneaks into the store, with R.W. and Melvin, who are both wearing masks. Mr. Barnett is woken by the sound of the three intruders breaking in. He then goes downstairs to confront them. Melvin grabs the cashbox and soon Mr. Barnett gets into a struggle with him, trying desperately to get the cashbox back. As Melvin tries to break free, his brother R.W. hits Mr. Barnett over the head with the back of an ax. He falls to the floor, acting as if he's dead. He isn't—at least not yet—but later on succumbs to his injuries.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 2, 2.2, Section 2.2, Problem 18

Evaluate the function $\displaystyle \lim \limits_{x \to -1} \frac{x^2 - 2x}{x^2 - x - 2}$ at the given numbers
$x = 0, -0.5, -0.9, -0.95, -0.99, -2, -1.5, -1.1, -1.01, -1.001$ and guess the value of the limit, if it exists.


Substituting all the given values of $x$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline\\
x & f(x) \\
\hline\\
0 & 0 \\
-0.5 & -1 \\
-0.9 & -9 \\
-0.95 & -19 \\
-0.99 & -99 \\
-0.999 & -999 \\
-2 & 2 \\
-1.5 & 3 \\
-1.1 & 11 \\
-1.01 & 101 \\
-1.001 & 1001\\
\hline
\end{array}


\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



Based from the values in the table, we can conclude that the limit of the function does not exist
because of its difference between its values as $x$ approaches -1 from left and right.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \lim \limits_{x \to -1} \frac{x^2 - 2x}{x^2 - x - 2} =& \frac{(-0.999999)^2 - 2 (-0.999999)}{(-0.999999)^2 - (-0.999999)-2} = -999999\\

\displaystyle \lim \limits_{x \to -1} \frac{x^2 - 2x}{x^2 - x - 2} =& \frac{(-1.000001)^2 - 2 (-1.000001)}{(-1.000001)^2 - (-1.000001)-2} = 1000001

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

College Algebra, Chapter 7, 7.3, Section 7.3, Problem 8

Determine the inverse of the matrix and verify that $B^{-1} B = BB^{-1} = I_3$

where $\displaystyle B = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 \\
0 & 2 & 2 \\
-2 & -1 & 0
\end{array} \right]$

We first add the identity matrix to the right of our matrix

$\displaystyle \left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
-2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right]$

Using Gauss-Jordan Elimination

$\displaystyle R_3 + 2R_1 \to R_3$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 5 & 4 & 2 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right]$


$\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} R_2$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 5 & 4 & 2 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right]$


$\displaystyle R_3 - 5 R_2 \to R_3$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & \displaystyle \frac{-5}{2} & 1
\end{array} \right]$

$\displaystyle - R_3$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]$

$\displaystyle R_2 - R_3 \to R_2$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & -2 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]$

$\displaystyle R_1 - 2 R_3 \to R_1$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 3 & 0 & 5 & -5 & 2 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & -2 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]$

$\displaystyle R_1 - 3 R_2 \to R_1$

$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & -2 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]$

The right half is now $B^{-1}$

$\displaystyle B^{-1} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & -1 \\
2 & -2 & 1 \\
-2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]$

We calculate $BB^{-1}$ and $B^{-1} B$ and verify that both products give the identity matrix $I_3$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

BB^{-1} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 \\
0 & 2 & 2 \\
-2 & -1 & 0
\end{array} \right]

\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & -1 \\
2 & -2 & 1 \\
-2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]

=&

\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 \cdot (-1) + 3 \cdot 2 + 2 \cdot (-2) & \displaystyle 1 \cdot 1 + 3 \cdot (-2) \cdot \frac{5}{2} & 1 \cdot (-1) + 3 \cdot 1 + 2 \cdot (-1) \\
0 \cdot (-1) + 2 \cdot 2 + 2 \cdot (-2) & \displaystyle 0 \cdot 1 + 2 \cdot (-2) + 2 \cdot \frac{5}{2} & 0 \cdot (-1) + 2 \cdot 1 + 2 \cdot (-1) \\
-2 \cdot (-1) + (-1) \cdot 2 + 0 \cdot (-2) & \displaystyle -2 \cdot 1 + (-1) \cdot (-2) + 0 \cdot \frac{5}{2} & -2 \cdot (-1) + (-1) \cdot 1 + 0 \cdot (-1)
\end{array} \right]

\\
\\
\\

=& \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right]

\\
\\
\\

B^{-1} B =\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & -1 \\
2 & -2 & 1 \\
-2 & \displaystyle \frac{5}{2} & -1
\end{array} \right]

\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 3 & 2 \\
0 & 2 & 2 \\
-2 & -1 & 0
\end{array} \right]

=& \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 \cdot 1 + 1 \cdot 0 + (-1) \cdot (-2) & -1 \cdot 3 + 1 \cdot 2 + (-1) \cdot (-1) & -1 \cdot 2 + 1 \cdot 2 + (-1) \cdot 0 \\
2 \cdot 1 + (-2) \cdot 0 + 1 \cdot (-2) & 2 \cdot 3 + (-2) \cdot 2 + 1 \cdot (-1) & 2 \cdot 2 + (-2) \cdot 2 + 1 \cdot 0 \\
\displaystyle -2 \cdot 1 + \frac{5}{2} \cdot 0 + (-1) \cdot (-2) & \displaystyle -2 \cdot 3 + \frac{5}{2} \cdot 2 + (-1) \cdot (-1) & \displaystyle -2 \cdot 2 + \frac{5}{2} \cdot 2 + (-1) \cdot 0
\end{array} \right]

\\
\\
\\

=& \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right]

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What are the advantages or disadvantages of cell phones?

Advantages
To connect with our relatives and friends has been made easier by cell phones now a days.
We can share stuffs and information with people in a matter of seconds, if emergency situation arises.
We never feel lonely if our cell phone is with us as our loved ones are always in touch.
It is travel friendly which easily fits into our pocket and does almost everything which a laptop and desktop can do.
Cell phones are cheaper than PCs and almost everyone can afford them.
Disadvantages
It is addictive.
Less use of books and paper and people generally rely upon cell phones more than their books and documents for studies and work related matters.
If used during night time in darkness, its light gives an illusion of morning to our brain, preventing sleep to come and people are left tired and generally deal with sleepless nights.
Sometimes, even if the phone doesn't rings or vibrates, we feel as if it is actually ringing, which is a medical problem.
The rays affects birds.
People who carry their phones in pockets which are close to chest are more vulnerable to heart problems. 

Cell phones are undoubtedly necessary in a fast-paced world we live in today. Although they are extremely useful on so many levels, they also have their disadvantages. I will discuss both the advantages and disadvantages below.
Advantages
A cell phone enables us to connect with others anytime, anywhere. It has never been easier to connect with our friends and family. We can reach one another instantly, whenever we desire, and wherever we go as long as there is network coverage. For example, in case of an emergency, one can easily get help if one carries a cell phone. 
In addition, a cell phone has become like a little computer, consisting of many programs and applications that enable us to do whatever we want. We can browse websites, send emails, watch movies, listen to music, play games, book flights, check for weather updates, and more. A cell phone is a powerful device that enables us to perform many tasks and get the results or solutions we need.
Disadvantages 
By relying so much on our cell phone, we can sometimes become addicted to it. We constantly depend on it, and we find it difficult to manage without it. 
As far as the Internet is concerned, people can become obsessed with checking their social media profiles, which means they immerse themselves into the world of the Internet. This often leads people to interact with their friends less in person. It is easier to chat with them on some social media platform than go out and have a decent conversation with them.
Additionally, we store important information on our cell phones, and there is always a risk that someone may access our private data. Sometimes we fail to secure our phones and risk being exposed.
https://www.enkivillage.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-mobile-phones.html

What made Odysseus want to return home to his wife after he had been gone for twenty whole years?

Odysseus always planned to return home after the war. He was delayed for so long by misfortunes that befell him because he offended the gods. He dreams of returning to his wife, son, and home. Though he had a pleasurable time with Calypso--for seven years--he still wanted to go back to Ithaca. He loved the wife he left behind and was happy with the life he had there.
Homer writes that Odysseus looks out over the waves mournfully every day. Eventually, Calypso realizes how unhappy he is and is told to set him free. Though they've had a relationship together and been together for years, it's clear that Odysseus won't be happy on her island. He sets out but still has more obstacles to overcome before he can return to Ithaca, slay the suitors, and begin to live the rest of his life with his wife and family.

There was no one specific event that made Odysseus want to return home to his wife, Penelope, after twenty years.  Honestly he didn't really want to leave in the first place, but he got called away to fight Troy on behalf of Menelaus whose wife, Helen, had been abducted Paris, the prince of Troy.  Odysseus was away from home for the first ten years because that is how long the Trojan War lasted.  Eventually, he conceived of the Trojan Horse idea, and this is what turned the tide of the war; it's how the Achaeans actually got inside the walls of Troy and eventually defeated the Trojans.
Odysseus tried to go right home to Ithaca, but a number of unfortunate events (some his fault, others not) occurred to delay him.  After yet another ten years, Odysseus remains just as committed to reaching home as he ever was.  His tenacity and perseverance, as well as his (relative) loyalty to his wife and religious piety, were seen as much to be admired by the ancient Greeks.

What is the official language of Oceania?

Newspeak is the official language of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984. Information about Newspeak can be found in the appendix of the text, in the section titled "The Principles of Newspeak".
Newspeak "was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism" (Orwell, 309) and its official purpose
was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly through eliminating undesirable words (Orwell, 309-310).
In essence, this means that the Party devised a language whose entire purpose is to simplify language to the point where undesirable words do not exist in the language. If undesirable words do not exist in the language, then the Party believes that it will be impossible for Party members to think undesirable thoughts (or at least impossible for them to be communicated). Newspeak is therefore invaluable as a tool for controlling the thoughts, actions, and lives of Party members.
For example, it would not serve the Party for words like "bad", "unpleasant", "dissatisfied" or "terrible" to exist. If these words existed, then Party members might use these words to describe their feelings about their lives, and this might lead to dangerous thoughts of rebellion. Instead, the Party only recognizes words that are beneficial to them in Newspeak, and even then in an overly simplified form. In this example, the Party only recognizes the word "good" and other forms of this word. Instead of "bad" or "terrible" a Party member speaking Newspeak would only be able to say that something was "ungood" or "doubleungood". Since "good" has a better connotation than "bad" and because "ungood" is a less specific word than something like "unfair" or "terrible" it is difficult for Party members to communicate any unhappiness with Oceania. This limiting of thought, communication, and language makes Oceania easier to control.

Newspeak is the language of Oceania in George Orwell's dystopian masterpiece 1984. The control of language by the Party is an essential part of their totalitarian government. The central idea is that if the Party can simplify language, it can simplify people's thoughts. Eventually, as Newspeak abolishes all words associated with rebellion, the government hopes that citizens will no longer even be able to conceptualize rebellion. Control of language is the ultimate method of mind control.
Newspeak "dumbs down" the English language by taking out word variety and removing connotations. Instead of saying "bad" is the opposite of "good," Newspeak requires "ungood." This makes every idea seem positive instead of negative, which is another form of brainwashing. People will think they are happier and more satisfied with life under the regime. Winston Smith's colleague Syme is working on the Newspeak dictionary, which is why we hear about the language and its formation and evolution. In chapter 5, Syme tells Winston,

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

Syme is very direct when he tells Winston that Newspeak intends "to narrow the range of thought." The simplification of language is meant to simplify people's minds and make them more malleable for Big Brother and the Party.

College Algebra, Chapter 4, 4.5, Section 4.5, Problem 38

Find a polynomial $P(x)$ of degree 3 that has integer coefficients and zeros and $i$.
Recall that if the polynomial function $P$ has real coefficient and if $a + bi$ is a zero of $P$, then $a - bi$ is also a zero of $P$. In our case, we have zeros of $0, i$ and $-i$. Thus

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
P(x) &= (x-0)(x-i)(x+i) && \text{Model}\\
\\
&= x(x^2-i^2) && \text{Difference of squares}\\
\\
&= x(x^2+1) && \text{Recall that } i^2 = -1\\
\\
&= x^3 + x && \text{Simplify}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

How does the narrative point of view affect the presentation of events in this story?

Since the story is narrated from the perspective of a young boy, readers are able to better identify with his decisions and level of understanding.
The decisions the narrator makes wouldn't be sympathetic from an adult perspective, but they are more understandable as the reader hears them from the perspective of a ten-year-old boy. Readers can see how he struggles to take care of his mother and the pride he takes in everything he does right. However, he's not an adult. When he goes to pick up medicine for her, he makes himself sick drinking it. That night, the roles are set right when his mother forgives him and tucks him back into bed.
The narrative point-of-view also helps readers grasp the level of understanding that the narrator has. He doesn't fully comprehend everything that's happening around him, because he has the limited experience of a child. He's not sure why the little girl influences him to drink the medicine. He's not sure how to take care of his mother properly. The stress on him is immense in the story, and he doesn't grasp that; instead, he berates himself when he doesn't do what he believes needs to be done perfectly.

The story is told from the point of view of the boy who must look after his mother during her illness. The events of the story seem more serious because the boy is not able to view what is happening from an experienced perspective. Consequently, his emotions are heightened. He takes inordinate pride in being able to build a fire and make a cup of tea for his mother, he is more fearful than he needs to be in procuring the whiskey from the pub for her, and the depth of his guilt over consuming his mother's cough medicine is an overreaction. In fact, his mother's routine recovery from an ordinary illness is hardly the miracle he prayed for, and Minnie Ryan does not "despise" him in the way that he assumes.

In "Odalie Misses Mass," what is Kate Chopin saying about the South using muckraking? What is she trying to illustrate about the South? How?

Muckraking is considered investigative writing meant to expose social ills or corporate and political corruption. In her short story "Odalie Misses Mass," Kate Chopin exposes some of the social ills of slavery.
When Odalie stops at the cabin of Aunt Pinky, she finds the old slave, "the helpless, shrivelled old negress," alone. Disturbed that Aunt Pinky is alone, Odalie learns that a young slave named Pug has left her to go to church. So, Odalie calls to her waiting mother that she is going to stay with Aunt Pinky and cannot continue on with her to church.
When she resumes her seat, Aunt Pinky repeats "done gone" a few times, suggesting that she is left alone frequently. Then, Aunt Pinky recalls when Odalie's grandfather said he would have to sell Pinky and others because he had hit hard times, but he did not sell Pinky after witnessing how fond Odalie was of her and when Odalie insisted that she did not want fancy things if it meant selling Aunt Pinky. Aunt Pinky also recalls to Odalie the time that she caught her crying because Pinky wanted to marry Hiram, a servant of a certain Mr. Benitou.
Because Odalie went home and cried and broke dishes 

"...an' pesters yo' gran'pap 'tell he bleedge to buy Hi'um f'om de Benitous."

Odalie's grandfather again softens and gives in to his granddaughter, and Pinky gets to marry Hiram. The contrast between the treatment and consideration for his granddaughter and that given his slave exposes the cruelty and disregard for human feelings that slave owners exhibited frequently in the South.

What details in the story suggest that Mrs. Jones was a large woman?

In addition to the several times that the narrator actually uses the word "large" to describe Mrs. Jones, there are a few other details that help us to get a sense of her size. For example, Mrs. Jones has a very large and very heavy purse. It is, in fact, so heavy that when the boy tries to steal it from her, he actually falls down as a result of its weight. Mrs. Jones must be a fairly sizable person, as she seems to carry it with ease. In addition, she is able to keep a hold on the boy, lifting and restraining him even when he starts to struggle; her ability to do this also indicates her size. Later, once they reach her house, the boy thinks make a run for it, but when he looks at her, he thinks twice. He must be somewhat intimidated by her, and this likely has something to do with her size as well.

There are certainly details in the story that suggest that Mrs. Jones was a large woman.
The first paragraph uses the word "large" to describe Mrs. Jones. The first sentence of the story tells us that Mrs. Jones is a "large woman with a large purse that had everything in it but hammer and nails." 
When a young boy tries to steal Mrs. Jones' purse, the text tells us that "the large woman simply turned around and kicked him right square in his blue-jeaned sitter."
During their conversation, Mrs. Jones remarks upon the boy's dirty face and asks whether there is anyone at home to tell him to wash his face. The boy answers “No’m,” which prompts Mrs. Jones to declare that she will wash it for him that evening. The text then tells us that the "large woman [started] up the street, dragging the frightened boy behind her."
At the end of the story, the text tells how the boy looks back "at the large woman in the door" as he leaves her house.

What is interesting about the interior spaces of Gatsby's house? How does Fitzgerald use interior space to help us further understand Gatsby's character?

Gatsby's house characterizes him in several ways. Most obviously, it is his chief vehicle for displaying his opulent wealth. However, the interior also shows how Gatsby fails to get his disguise as a gentleman completely in place.
The first time Nick attends one of Gatsby's lavish parties, he and Jordan stumble on Gatsby's library. Nick describes it as a Gothic-style room paneled in English oak. Nick speculates that Gatsby bought it from a "ruin" in Europe and had it shipped over.
In the library, Nick and Jordan meet the owl-eyed man, who informs them that, to his surprise, all the books in the library are real, not made of cardboard. This causes the owl-eyed man to say:

It’s a triumph. What thoroughness! What realism!

However, he also notes that the pages of the books are uncut, meaning Gatsby has never read them. In this way, Gatsby's disguise as a well-educated gentleman is shown to be a fraud. This characterizes Gatsby as a man who can strike a pose, but not quite pull it off, because he can't get the details exactly straight. The library is similar to Gatsby's pink suits: not quite right. Therefore, people like Tom Buchanan can see through him and treat him with contempt.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 4, 4.2, Section 4.2, Problem 14

Verify that the function $f(x) = \frac{x}{x+2}$ satisfies the hypothesis of the Mean Value Theorem on the interval $[1,4]$. Then find all the numbers $c$ that satisfy the conclusion of the Mean Value Theorem.
We know that $f(x)$ is a rational function that is continuous everywhere except on the values of $x$ that will make its denominator equal to 0. In this case, that value is $x= -2$.But its not included in the interval. Hence, $f(x)$ is continuous on the interval $[1,4]$. Also the derivative, $\displaystyle f'(x) = \frac{2}{(x+2)^2}$ is differentiable everywhere except at $x = -2$. Hence, $f(x)$ is differentiable on the open interval $(1,4)$.

Now solving for $c$, we have...

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
f'(c) &= \frac{f(b) - f(a)}{b-a}\\
\\
f'(c) &= \frac{\left[\frac{4}{4+2} \right] - \left[ \frac{1}{1+2} \right]}{4-1}\\
\\
f'(c) &= \frac{1}{9}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

but $\displaystyle f'(x) = \frac{2}{(x+2)^2}$, so $f'(c) = \frac{2}{(c+2)^2}$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{(c+2)^2} &= \frac{1}{9}\\
\\
18 &= (c+2)^2\\
\\
18 &= c^2 + 4c + 4\\
\\
0 &= c^2 + 4c - 14
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Using Quadratic Formula, we get...
$c = 2.2426$ and $c = -6.2426$
We got two values of $c$. However, the function is defined only at interval $[1,4]$. Therefore, $c = 2.2426$

What is Margot likely to do after she is let out at the end of "All Summer in a Day"?

Margot, who came to Venus later than the other children and therefore remembers the sun, has been longing for sunshine in ways the rest of her classmates cannot fully understand. She has been largely listless, withdrawn, and depressed, although she did have a fit once in the shower when she screamed that the water couldn't touch her head.
We know she is having a fit when she is first locked in the closet, screaming and beating on the door to get out, but by the time the sun has gone away and the rain is back—the time when the children remember to let her out—her passion has been spent.
She is primarily presented as depressed: she does not join in the games of the other children, she stands apart from them, and she does not answer William even when he pushes her. Therefore, she now is likely to double down on that behavior and become even more listless and passive. Her anger will turn evermore inward. Her parents, already worried about her and thinking of leaving their lucrative jobs on Venus, will hopefully speed up plans to get back to earth and sunny weather before she attempts suicide or to hurt herself.

The story does not tell us how Margot will act after she emerges from the closet. However, we can probably make some speculations about her likely actions after she is let out.
First, Margot is likely to be very angry. After all, the sun only comes out once every seven years in Venus. We know that Margot, more than any of the other children, has been looking forward to seeing the sun. 
The text tells us that Margot desperately tried to dissuade the children from their cruel errand. We also learn that she threw herself against the door and beat on it after she was locked in. So, Margot is likely to be very angry after she is let out.
Second, although it is possible to guess Margot's emotional condition, it is difficult to predict Margot's likely actions upon emerging from the closet. Her anger may remain dormant or even hidden from the children. From the text, we learn that Margot is naturally introverted and that she is habitually wary during her interactions with the other children. She often says very little, even when her patience has been sorely tested.
When William pushes her, she does not push back. Even when the children accuse her of lying about her experiences with the sun, Margot remains characteristically silent.
However, Margot does occasionally have emotional outbursts; the text tells us that she once refused to take a shower at school and that she screamed at the thought of water touching her head. So, at this point, we can speculate about Margot's emotions after emerging from the closet. However, it may be a little harder to predict how she will act out her anger. 
 

How did the election of 1800 fray the relationships and friendships of major political figures of the era? Think of Adams/Jefferson and Hamilton/Burr.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson forged a strong friendship and alliance in the heady days before and during the Revolutionary war. They were united by a common cause—freedom from Great Britain and the foundation of a new and better nation built on republicanism (meaning no monarchy) and democracy. They were united too by the stresses of war and by fear of sharing the same fate should the Americans lose the war: execution as traitors.
But while both were united behind the same general political ideals, the devil is in the details, and by the election of 1800, the paths of these two men had already sharply diverged. They clashed primarily over the power of the central government: Jefferson feared a strong federal government and favored state's rights, while Adams was adamantly in favor of a strong federal system.
Their relationship had begun deteriorating in the 1790s, largely over Jefferson's support of the French Revolution and Adam's growing distaste for what he considered Jefferson's arrogance. When they ran against each other in the 1800 election, it became one of the bitterest election battles ever, further dividing the two former friends. Jefferson won the election and, as a result, Adams immediately left town. The two would, however, reconcile about a decade later.
Bitterness also infected the relationship between prominent political figures Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton hated Burr as an opportunist and never missed a chance to attack him politically. This included the 1800 election, in which Burr ran successfully for vice president despite Hamilton's opposition. Hamilton's ceaseless attacks on Burr finally lead Burr to challenge Hamilton to duel and kill him in 1804.

The election of 1800 was the first election that pitted opposing parties against each other, and it was rancorous in nature. In this election, the incumbent, John Adams, who was a Federalist, ran against Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, or Republican for short. The Federalists accused Jefferson, who supported the French Revolution, of supporting anarchy and rebellion. On the other hand, the Republicans criticized the Federalists for passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, which they believed curtailed civil rights.
The Democratic-Republicans won the election, but Thomas Jefferson tied Aaron Burr, who was running for vice-president, in the Electoral College vote. This outcome resulted because the president and vice-president ran on the same ballot (a procedure that was later changed). The tie was thrown to the House of Representatives, where Alexander Hamilton pushed for Jefferson's nomination as president. Hamilton had long opposed Burr and had thought of him as corrupt and undeserving of public office. Their rivalry dated back to 1791, when Burr ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate against Hamilton's father-in-law. They later tangled in New York politics, when Hamilton was the leader of the state Federalists (see the source below) and Burr was involved with the state Democratic-Republicans. In 1804, Hamilton and Burr fought a duel on the cliffs of Weehawken, New Jersey, in which Burr killed Hamilton.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/burr-vs-hamilton-behind-the-ultimate-political-feud

The case of Adams and Jefferson is especially marked and poignant. These two men, early advocates of American independence in the Second Continental Congress, became close friends and correspondents during the Revolution and the years that followed. However, with the establishment of the new federal government, they became adversaries due to their differing political views and their ambitions. Jefferson, who served as vice president under Adams, ran for president against him in the 1800 election. The election was so full of vitriol and mudslinging that the two men did not speak again for many years. In the final years of their lives, they began a correspondence that ended only with their deaths, on the same day (July 4) in 1826.
Burr and Hamilton had no such lifelong friendship but were not rivals until the 1790s, when Hamilton, who did not trust Burr, began to actively campaign against him in New York City. In 1800, with Burr and Jefferson locked in an Electoral College tie, Hamilton, who disagreed profoundly with Jefferson, nevertheless endorsed him over Burr. This was not the direct reason for their fatal duel, but the two men became bitter personal and political rivals. Later, Hamilton made public remarks against Burr, criticizing his character, and Burr challenged him to the infamous duel that ended Hamilton's life. The political divisions of the period were not the only factors contributing to the duel, but they provided an atmosphere in which a bitter rivalry could fester into violence.
https://www.history.com/news/burr-hamilton-duel-political-legacy-died

The election of 1800 caused significant damage to relationships that had been developed in the past. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were no longer seeing events the same way. Jefferson favored a smaller federal government and more rights for the states. Adams believed in a larger, more powerful federal government. Adams had hoped to manipulate the electoral vote to win the election, but he failed to succeed in doing this. Thomas Jefferson was not pleased with the actions of John Adams. Adams and Jefferson were no longer on favorable terms with each other.
Aaron Burr realized he had a chance to win the presidency in 1800, even though his party clearly wanted Jefferson. Both Jefferson and Burr received the same number of electoral votes. Instead of allowing Jefferson to get the presidency, Burr hoped he might gain enough Federalist votes in the electoral college to take the presidency from Jefferson. This created a deadlocked House of Representatives and increased tensions between the two men.
Even Adams and Hamilton had become bitter enemies by the end of the election of 1800. Hamilton blasted Adams in the final weeks of the election. Hamilton also had a strong dislike for Burr. He publicly blasted Burr in the presidential election of 1796. He also campaigned against Burr in 1804 in an election for governor. Eventually, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton engaged in a dual in 1804, leading to Hamilton’s death.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamilton-in-duel

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/echoes-from-the-president_b_10326026

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/

In Edward Bloor's book Tangerine, why do Paul's parents ignore Erik's cruelty?

The Fishers ignore Erik’s cruelty because Erik is a master manipulator who is easily able to mask his true self when his parents are around him. He quickly morphs into a sweet, innocent boy when the Fishers are around, but he cruelly turns on Paul as soon as they leave the room. It helps that Erik often has lackeys, like Arthur Bauer, do his dirty work, so most of his cruelty cannot be traced directly back to him.
The Fishers also ignore Erik’s cruelty because they are willfully blind. Edward Bloor stresses that the Fishers, particularly Mr. Fisher, are captured by a strange phenomenon, the “Erik Fisher Football Dream.” Mr. Fisher wants Erik to play Division I football and lay the groundwork for a career in the NFL. Mrs. Fisher seems less enthusiastic about this prospect, but willfully supports her husband’s mania. Consequently, anything that might tarnish Erik’s reputation is pushed into the background. Anything that contradicts the Erik Fisher Dream simply does not exist.
Through this characterization of the Fishers, Edward Bloor may be criticizing our society’s tendency to lionize famous athletic stars and forgive them for any transgression, especially compared to a regular person who commits the same crime or has the same moral failing.