Explain why Americans moved west of the Mississippi River during the 1830s and 1840s, how they accomplished this, and where they moved to.

Ultimately, American westward expansion was driven by the belief that the land west of the Mississippi River held better opportunities.
By the 1830s, the East Coast was beginning to feel overcrowded and the soil overworked. Farmers dreamed of huge, relative untouched, fertile pieces of land to work west of the Mississippi. Additionally, eastern states had well-established political machines in place, and citizens wanted to forge new states where they would have a hand in building the eventual political representation.
By the 1840s, the Oregon Trail began, which formed a viable path to the Oregon Territory and the Pacific Ocean for families to travel by covered wagon. Many made it all the way, but a significant population stopped short and settled the land in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. A motivating driver by this point was the idea of Manifest Destiny, which was the idea that American culture and politics were sacred and morally correct, and Americans had the duty, handed down by a higher power, to spread American way of life from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.
In the late 1840s, a massive gold rush to California convinced people to go west, driven by dreams of financial prosperity.
Aside from covered wagons, travelers also relied on the steamboat to travel rivers. Others traveled west to practice their religion. The best example of this is the Mormons settling in Utah.
This westward expansion was supported through the American government’s ability to secure new territories through both war and diplomacy.

By the 1830s, the United States government was pushing a program of Westward expansion and encouraging white settlers to move west of the Mississippi River. By 1824, 30% of the population of the United States lived in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. A slow move west had already been occurring, and by the 1830s, families cited overcrowding, depleted soil, urbanization, lack of economic opportunities, and undesirable politics as reasons to move West, away from the dense and saturated East coast. This move directly coincided with further genocide and displacement of indigenous peoples as white setters colonized land and brought the force of the United States's militias westward.
By the 1830s, westward-bound settlers traveled by river via steamboat and canalboat and over land on trails via horse/oxen-drawn wagons and on foot. Many of these settlers moved to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Oklahoma. By the 1840s, as white settlers moved West, the United States began to secure more territory through its war with Mexico. In 1841, the Oregon Trail opened and over the next 20 years, over 300,000 people traversed the trail by wagon. Many of these travelers settled in Oregon Country. Many others settled in Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, California, and Texas.
By 1845, the idea of Manifest Destiny, in which white settlers believed they had a divine right, given by their christian god, to expand westward (killing and displacing thousands of indigenous people as they went) became an accepted term and racist perspective.

Americans moved west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s-40s for many reasons. One reason was the American people believed the Americans should control the land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. This belief, called Manifest Destiny, encouraged the United States to acquire land and to have American people move to these lands. There was a belief that the American way of life was the best way of life, and therefore, the Americans should control this land.
There were other reasons for the westward movement. Some people moved westward because they saw a great deal of economic opportunity. These people wanted to farm their own land or to start their own businesses. They believed the western lands were a golden area filled with many new economic opportunities. Some people were also looking for a sense of adventure. Moving westward fulfilled this desire for adventure. The Mormons moved to Utah in the hope that they could practice their religion without harassment.
Westward movement was accomplished in several ways. Texas was added to the United States in 1845. The United States fought Mexico in the Mexican-American War and gained a great deal of land from Mexico in 1848. The United States also divided the Oregon Territory with Great Britain. As more people moved to these western lands, railroads and roads were built to facilitate the westward movement. People moved to the Great Plains and also to the areas near the Pacific Ocean, such as Oregon and California. People also moved to areas where minerals were found. For example, California’s population grew dramatically when gold was discovered there.
https://www.historynet.com/westward-expansion

Americans moved west of the Mississippi River for the same reason they always did—greater opportunity.  Mexico initially welcomed Americans in Texas until they realized that the new immigrants would not give up their Protestant faith or their slaves.  Texans finally declared their independence from Mexico and created the Republic of Texas, which would be annexed into the United States in 1845.  Settlers moved into the Willamette Valley in Oregon following the Oregon Trail via wagon train from 1840 to 1860.  They moved here looking for cheap, fertile land.  The emigrant flow only increased once the United States gained clear title to the territory in 1846.  The Mormons of Nauvoo, Illinois moved to Salt Lake starting in the 1840s in order to find a place to practice their faith without persecution.  This group of emigrants were famous for taking large handcarts with them to move their supplies.  Finally, the California Trail began in 1849 after John Sutter found gold in the territory.  After the discovery, thousands came from all over the world—some came via the overland route which was also part of the Oregon Trail, while others took a sea and land route with a portage through Panama.  They had to take a land route through Panama as there was no canal there back then.  Others took clipper ships around the tip of South America to reach California.  Once there, only a minority struck it rich, though many realized that the region could grow crops nearly year-round and there was a good market in selling miners supplies and food.  

Explain how the English colonies became the most populous and powerful region in North America by 1700.

The different European ventures in North America all had some success by the mid-1600s. The Dutch were a major maritime power that had substantial trading success, but they lacked numbers, and this allowed the English to squeeze them out of New York, which had been New Amsterdam until 1664. For more on New Netherlands and New Amsterdam, see the first link below. The Dutch and the French both focused almost exclusively on commercial ventures, treating the natives as allies and trading partners, and had few colonists.
The Spaniards had some dramatic successes in the Americas, starting with the voyages of Columbus in the 1490s and 1500s, but they did not focus on North America. They conquered two major empires, the Aztec and the Inca in Central and South America, respectively, and established New Spain. They had larger numbers of colonists than the Dutch and the French, but success in North America was limited. The settlement of Florida was tenuous. Harsh policies in what is today New Mexico led to the Pueblo Revolt in 1680.
As the Spaniards' treasury grew, so did their bad reputation. In 1542, Dominican friar Bartolome de Las Casas published A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, bringing to light appalling Spanish abuses against native populations. The revelation of Spanish abuses necessitated the publication of the New Laws by the Spanish crown, but Las Casas' tract spread far and wide. The English enthusiastically printed it in large numbers. For a full text, see the second link below. By this time, King Henry VIII of England had issued his 1534 Act of Supremacy, broken from the papacy, and established a separate Church of England with himself at the head. The English saw themselves as a kindler, gentler alternative to the Spanish "papists" for the settlement of the Americas. There was, of course, also economic rivalry.
There is more to the important prehistory of the English colonization of North America. Even before the settlement of North America, the English had a strong rationale for colonization, as articulated by Richard Hakluyt “the Elder” in 1585: to plant the Christian religion, to conduct commerce, and to conquer. Colonization and conquest, of course, were not a recipe for harmony with the natives. Sir William Herbert wrote in the early 1590s that the assimilation of the English into native cultures can best be avoided by completely destroying the culture of the natives. The English already had experience with establishing colonies and using force to impose their ways in Ireland. In North America, they followed a similar model.
There were also population pressures back home driving English colonization. The population of England grew rapidly in the 1500s, as did the number of the poor and homeless. These people were mostly able-bodied but unemployed and deemed a threat to morality and the social order. The government came to see the colonies as a place to put them.
Once the English overcame early difficulties in Roanoke and Jamestown, the colonies began to grow dramatically. There was a motive. There was a model in place. There were people to send. There were no direct competitors, except for the natives, in the areas they settled. The adoption of tobacco as a cash crop, the importation of slaves, and the early 1700s legislation of race-based slavery, which meant a big increase in numbers through procreation, all led to dramatic demographic growth in England's main colony of Virginia.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/amerbegin/exploration/text5/hakluyt.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~daviss/work/files/presentations/casshort/

http://www.newamsterdamhistorycenter.org/bios/origins.html

In economics, it’s said that there are two institutional paths a government can take. One is called extractive, because resources are removed without being replaced. The people who control the resources use them to their own advantage, and they become wealthy and powerful in the process. The other path is called nonextractive, or inclusive. Resources in nonextractive economies are used to improve the lives of all citizens, not just the people who control the resources (like political or business leaders).
While the British did export sugar, tobacco, and textiles from their American colonies, pure extraction hadn’t been the primary reason for their settlement. In addition to the settlers who left England for religious freedom, there were those who wanted to develop the new world into a vast trading network. As British demand for American exports increased, the number of colonists increased to provide them. Settlements became villages, towns, and cities as more people arrived to work. Soon, the colonies were not simple outposts sending goods outward, but settlements capable of sustaining their own economies and importing their own goods.
With only a few exceptions, Spanish and French colonies did not fare well. Spain had entered the Age of Exploration in search of “gold, God, and glory.” Their mission was to extract riches and convert any indigenous peoples they encountered to Christianity, thereby achieving glory in both the economic and religious sense. The Spanish colonial empire reported to their king, an ocean away, while the British colonists established the General Assembly in 1619 to deal with local matters. The French, like the Spanish, had no representative government and were subject to laws set by the crown. The French and Spanish colonies were not developed for long-term settlement but rather as lucrative extraction economies. England’s investment in the local, nonextractive economy allowed them to expand and endure.

Simply put, the English colonies became more powerful than the Spanish and French colonies because more English people made their homes here.  English colonists created cities and lived on large farms.  These people needed finished goods from Britain as well as military protection from Indians and potential invasion by the Spanish and French.  England saw opportunity in the New World; it was a place to send religious dissenters (New England) as well as debtors (Georgia).  These people could in turn send back tobacco, cotton, lumber, and foodstuffs to Britain.  As the number of English people increased due to immigration and the higher birth rate than in the Old World, they expanded their influence by moving farther inland, thus claiming more land for Britain.  Before 1700, people in Britain and the colonies agreed that expansion was a good thing; expansion would slowly drive out Spanish and French influences.  England was also able to possess the land by virtue of having the most powerful navy and merchant marine in the world to protect and resupply its colonies.  

Please, can I get a full break down of the book When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten?

When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten was originally published in 1995. The 2015 twentieth-anniversary edition includes an updated introduction and conclusion.
Korten contrasts the free market vision of Adam Smith, which he sees as focused on small businesses and entrepreneurship, with the reality of today's huge multinational corporations. Korten argues that the growth of large globalized corporations, rather than creating the free and competitive markets envisaged by Smith that lead to public benefits, have instead resulted in rent seeking and the concentration of wealth into the hands of a limited number of private individuals, often to the detriment of the public sector.
Korten sees the current corporate environment as focused on short-term profits fueled by ever-accelerating growth. He argues that this model is sustained by predatory finance, the exploitation of workers, and the destruction of the environment as enabled by globalization.
While free markets are often supported by libertarian ideology, Korten points out that global multinationals do not flourish by increasing freedom and democracy but rather subvert democracy by wielding political influence to their own advantage. He sees that a narrow focus on increasing corporate profitability has actually harmed the lives of most people while benefiting only a limited global elite. He argues that corporations succeed by externalizing many of their costs, leaving a hollowed out public sector responsible for the resources, such as transportation infrastructure, education, and medical care on which corporate profits are built.
The book concludes by advocating for a new economic model as opposed to the current model. This would be one that takes into account social and environmental costs and responsibilities.

What is the difference between British and American Romanticism?

The major difference that presented itself between American and British Romantic works was their treatment of the nation and its history. The development and self-perception of each nation had a major impact on what aspects would be romanticized. In England, the country was already heavily populated, and the nation was considered old—explored, developed, and historic. In order to employ Romanticism, writers focused on the whimsical and Romantic aspects of historical locations, like castles and the moors, while also showing high preference for the military, praising it for being an ancient and noble profession, as opposed to the industrialized professions in city life.
In the Americas, colonizers considered the land largely unexplored and unpopulated (never mind the fact that civilizations had been living there for centuries). While they didn't have as much white history upon which to draw, American Romantic writers wrote fantastical works about exploration and the Romanticism inherent in farm life and outdoor adventures. The differences in the development of these two nations and their relative ages gave rise to their differences in writing style and thematic elements.

The differences between English Romanticism and American Romanticism are largely due to the national context in which these works were written. England had been a country for over a thousand years by the time its Romantic movement started in the late 18th century. The English people had a long national history and had been a powerful force militarily and culturally for several hundred years. This history, along with the often negative social effects of the scientific and industrial revolutions, sparked a change in their artistic focus. Poets like William Blake, William Wordsworth, and Samuel Coleridge had tired of the rationalistic, scientifically motivated writing of the Enlightenment, and wanted to probe the emotional lives of common people, as well as marvel at the mysteries of nature in terms of its beauty, rather than its physical laws. Poems like Blake's “Chimney Sweeper” and Wordsworth's “She Dwelt Among the Untrodden Ways” looked at how life treated ordinary people, and sometimes it was not a happy thing to see. Shelley's “Ozymandias” questioned England's imperialistic, empire building foreign policy. Coleridge's poetry, particularly Rime of the Ancient Mariner, presented a supernatural vision.
In America, things were different. The country was young, having been colonized and settled less than two centuries before Europe's Romantic Era began. Unlike England, America had no long, well-established cultural history to shape its literature—so America tended to follow what it read from Europe. So why did its Romantic period evolve differently? If America didn't have a lot of history, what did it have a lot of? In 1800 America still had only 16 states and less than six million people (almost a million of which were slaves)--so most of America was undeveloped and unsettled. What America had in abundance was territory, an almost mythological frontier that seemed to stretch out infinitely. America also had more of something than almost any other country in the history of civilization—freedom (although obviously not for those million slaves—theirs would come as the Romantic Era was giving way to the next movement, Realism).
So, as a result of this frontier and freedom, American Romanticism went down a somewhat different literary path. Writers like James Fenimore Cooper wrote about exploration and the beauty of the continent. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau helped begin an intellectual movement called Transcendentalism, that espoused the idea that every man was imprinted with the keys to the universe in his own being—you didn't need a scientist to explain life to you, it was there already, provided by your maker, in your own soul. This idea reflected the freedom Americans felt to be their own people.
Of course, Americans also enjoyed the titillating thrill of a good romantic horror story, and Edgar Allan Poe's work echoed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but with an important difference. Shelley's Victor Frankenstein had good intentions as he created his disaster—but Poe's characters, perhaps reflecting the darker side of personal freedom, got themselves into trouble in other, less altruistic ways.
That's a lot, isn't it? Break it down to this: Romanticism's development in England was largely influenced by its national history and industrial/cultural/military might. In America, Romanticism was shaped by the frontier and personal freedom.

During the Age of Exploration, what cultural impact did Africans have on the New World?

Early American colonization involved three primary groups: Europeans, Native Americans, and Africans. During the Age of Exploration, both Native Americans and Africans had an often overlooked influence on early American colonization. Specific to Africa, some of these cultural contributions include agriculture, cuisine, and song and dance. These influences are still felt in American culture today.
In terms of agriculture, Africans brought their skills and labor to the harvesting of rice in America. Rice cultivation was attempted during early colonization, and Africans later used their expert system of groundwater, springs, and soil moisture reservation. This led to the popularity of rice in America and the ability to harvest it as a cash crop.
Many familiar American dishes have their roots in African cuisine, including gumbo, deep frying, and millet bread (cornbread). Many other American food items stem from Africa, including okra, watermelon, cucumbers, yams, and black-eyed peas. Many recipes used during early colonization were based on African cuisine. For example, mashed black-eyed peas were a delicacy often prepared by West Africans and were included in an early Virginia cookbook.
Song and dance were a significant part of African culture during early colonization. Many of these rhythms were designed to express the realities of living in the New World. Music and dance were a part of African religious festivals and social gatherings. Contemporary American music and dance are rooted in an African legacy. In fact, drums were outlawed when slave overseers learned that drumming could be used as secret communication. Despite this, African roots continue to permeate American music and dance.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntuseland/essays/threeworlds.htm

https://www.nps.gov/jame/african-influences-on-colonial-cuisine.htm

What lesson(s) do you think Robert Walton has learned from listening to Victor’s story and watching him die? (What did Victor tell him to learn from it?)

As he tells his story, Victor has offered Walton a number of pieces of advice. At one point, he tells Walton,

Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to the the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.

Victor wants Walton to benefit from his own experience. Walton's ship has been surrounded by ice for some time, threatening the lives of his entire crew. Consequently, his men have requested that, if the ship ever becomes free again, they immediately give up this enterprise and return to England. Walton wants to stay and continue his exploration, and he says,

The die is cast; I have consented to return if we are not destroyed. Thus are my hopes blasted by cowardice and indecision; I come back ignorant and disappointed. It requires more philosophy than I possess to bear this injustice with patience.

In other words, he has not learned to check his ambition, to think of knowledge as dangerous (as Victor has advised). Just as Victor has failed to internalize the advice he, himself, gives (after all, he berates Walton's crew, telling them it is cowardly to return home without achieving their mission), neither has Walton. Instead, what Walton has learned is that he cannot jeopardize the lives of others without their consent. Of the crew, he tells Victor "'I cannot lead them unwillingly to danger, and I must return.'" Victor's ambition led to his own ruin, as well as the deaths of his family members and friends. Walton may be willing to sacrifice himself to danger in the name of scientific discovery, but he is, now, unwilling to subject his crew to danger to which they do not consent. This is what he has learned from Victor's story. He is as ambitious as Victor but not as selfish.

Ultimately, Robert Walton learns that sometimes the risks are not worth the potential rewards when it comes to extreme scientific discoveries. Walton is sympathetic to Victor Frankenstein and listens to his story carefully. Victor tells a tale of scientific ambition gone too far, and after seeing the havoc Victor's ambition has wreaked on his life and on the lives of his family, Robert Walton is persuaded to abandon his dangerous exploration.
Victor's story, of course, involves his building a human out of the body parts of the dead. His ambition leads him to try to discover the secret to life and how to either prevent or bypass natural death. Victor pursues this project out of curiosity but also because he wants the glory that would accompany such a significant advancement. This leads Victor to not fully think about the consequences of his actions. He is horrified when he brings his creation to life. He immediately abandons it to fend for itself in a world it does not understand and which judges him based on his terrifying appearance. To avenge Victor's abandonment and refusal to create a female companion for the creature (actually, he makes her but destroys her when he thinks the two will reproduce), the monster takes revenge by killing Victor's friends and family. By the end of the novel, when Walton meets Victor, he is near death and in what is basically a fight to the death between himself and the creature. Despite the harrowing details of his story, which should serve as a warning to any reasonable listener, Victor gives Walton mixed messages about the pursuit of ambition. He says,

Seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries. Yet why do I say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed. (152)

Here, Victor begins by dissuading Walton from seeking ambition; however, he wavers at the end and says that maybe not everyone will have the tragic outcome he has experienced. At the same time, however, Victor also asks Walton to continue Victor's own quest to destroy his creature. This shows that Victor has perhaps not learned as much from his experiences as we would hope. This quest has destroyed Victor and led to his imminent death. Why would he want another man to take on this miserable feat? 
Finally, Walton decides to abandon his dangerous exploration of the Arctic, saying that he "cannot lead [his men] unwillingly to danger" and that he must go back to England (151). This indicates that Walton has learned from Victor's story: he sees that unchecked ambition can hurt not only the one who aspires to glory, but also those around him. He hears about how Victor lost William, Elizabeth, Clerval, and his father, all because of the fallout from Victor's treatment of the creature. Walton does not want to end up like Victor, dying and miserable in the cold, bleak Arctic.

In the book My Side of the Mountain by Jean George, what are three differences between Sam and the Baron Weasel?

Sam Gribley is a city kid who has run away to live on his own and in the wilds of the Catskill Mountains. He has read some survival skill books, but now he has to put what he’s read into everyday practice. Baron Weasel (whom Sam named) knows all about life on the mountain and seems to think he owns the place. Some additional differences are listed here in Sam versus Baron format:
Domesticated boy v. Wild animal
Newcomer v. Established resident
Hides from most human visitors v. Runs off a couple (In the 11th chapter, titled “In Which Frightful Learns Her ABCs”)
Makes warmer clothes out of deer hides to deal with winter v. Undergoes a change in fur color from brown to white to deal with winter
Has to learn how to live in the wild v. Knows how to survive instinctively, as common practice

What is Chernobyl like today?

The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26, 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. This and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi incident in Japan are the only two level 7 (major accident) events on the International Nuclear Event Scale to have occurred. Level 7 is the most severe level of civilian nuclear accident. 
Chernobyl was a power plant located in Pripyat, a village in what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union having collapsed in the interim, Ukraine is now a sovereign state. Pripyat is located in northern Ukraine near the border of Belarus. 
After the nuclear accident, the contaminated region surrounding the power plant was evacuated, creating the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, an area that is now a ghost town, visited only by a few intrepid tourists and scientists studying the long-term effects of radiation on the ecosystem. Much of it is now a wildlife reserve.
In the absence of human habitation, the ecosystem has proven surprisingly robust, with small animal populations recovering within a decade of the disaster. Although scientific studies are still in progress and long-term effects on animal genetics may only show up in future generations, wildlife now appears to be thriving in the area. The fear of radiation that keeps people (even poachers) from returning to the area—as well as the laws protecting it from trespassing—have proven a net positive for wolf and other predator populations.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

How have microscopes helped biologists understand cells and organisms?

Microscopes allow humans to see cells that are too tiny to see with the naked eye. Therefore, once they were invented, a whole new microscopic world emerged for people to discover. On a microscopic level, new life forms were discovered and the germ theory of disease was born. The organization of an organism's body from cells, to tissues, to organs, to systems, to the complete individual could finally be studied and visualized.
The Cell Theory emerged from early work with microscopes. The notion that all living things are composed of cells, that cells are the units of structure and function of living things and that cells arise from pre-existing cells were all powerful ideas.
Microscopes allowed scientists to observe Prokaryotic cells which make up Bacteria and Archaea. These cells are small and contain no membrane- bound organelles. It allowed them to observe Eukaryotic cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles that perform different life functions. These are seen in Fungi, Protists, Animals and Plants.
Ever since the first simple microscope was invented, as technology improved and led to the development of compound microscopes, electron microscopes and beyond, our knowledge of the microscopic world has expanded tremendously. Society has reaped the benefits new knowledge can provide in the fields of medicine, surgery, pharmaceutical industry, biology, taxonomy, etc. 
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0073031216/student_view0/exercise2/the_importance_of_microscopes.html

Where does Emily Stilson think she is while in the hospital?

The early part of the play Wings deals with Emily's massive stroke and its deeply traumatic aftermath. As such, her connection to the outside world has been unceremoniously shattered. All of a sudden, nothing seems to make any sense. Her frail, distorted mind is trapped in a vortex of fragmented thoughts, at once wild and disconnected. Somehow Emily needs to unify these disparate bursts of memory and thought to re-establish a connection with a world she no longer truly recognizes.
To a certain extent, she does this, but not in a coherent way. She constructs a world out of the past, out of the fragile shards of memory that now constitute the only semblance of order in her radically disrupted life. Inevitably, it is her previous life as an aviatrix that rises from the depths of her subconscious to shine through the shattered remnants of her conscious mind. Emily looks around suspiciously at the doctors and nurses as they ask her a series of questions, trying to establish her state of mind. She comes to feel as if she's been shot down behind enemy lines and that the hospital's medical staff are her interrogators. Their questioning is standard medical procedure in the case of a stroke victim, but to Emily in her current state, they're giving her the third degree, demanding top secret information that she's determined not to provide.

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 8, 8.5, Section 8.5, Problem 9

int (x^2+12x+12)/(x^3-4x)dx
To solve using partial fraction method, the denominator of the integrand should be factored.
(x^2+12x+12)/(x^3-4x) =(x^2+12x+12)/(x(x-2)(x+2))
Then, express it as sum of fractions.
(x^2+12x+12)/(x(x-2)(x+2)) = A/x + B/(x-2) + C/(x+2)
To determine the values of A, B and C, multiply both sides by the LCD of the fractions present.
x(x-2)(x+2)*(x^2+12x+12)/(x(x-2)(x+2)) = (A/x + B/(x-2) + C/(x+2))*x(x-2)(x+2)
x^2+12x+12=A(x-2)(x+2) +Bx(x+2)+Cx(x-2)
Then, assign values to x in which either x, x-2 or x+2 will become zero.
So, plug-in x=0 to get the value of A.
0^2+12(0)+12=A(0-2)(0+2)+B(0)(0+2)+C(0)(0-2)
0+0+12=A(-4)+B(0)+C(0)
12=-4A
-3=A
Also, plug-in x=2 to get the value of B.
2^2+12(2)+12=A(2-2)(2+2)+B(2)(2+2)+C(2)(2-2)
4+24+12=A(0)+B(8)+C(0)
40=8B
5=B
And subsitute x=-2 to get the value of C.
(-2)^2 + 12(-2)+12=A(-2-2)(-2+2)+B(-2)(-2+2)+C(-2)(-2-2)
4-24+12=A(0)+B(0)+C(8)
-8=8C
-1=C
So the partial fraction decomposition of the integral is
int (x^2+12x+12)/(x^3-4x)dx
= int (x^2+12x+12)/(x(x-2)(x+2))dx
= int(-3/x +5/(x-2)-1/(x+2))dx
Then, express it as three integrals.
= int-3/xdx + int 5/(x-2)dx - int 1/(x+2)dx
= -3int 1/xdx + 5int 1/(x-2)dx - int 1/(x+2)dx
To take the integral, apply the formula int 1/u du =ln|u|+C .
=-3ln|x| + 5ln|x-2|-ln|x+2|+C

Therefore,int (x^2+12x+12)/(x^3-4x)dx=-3ln|x| + 5ln|x-2|-ln|x+2|+C.

In "The Devil and Tom Walker," how does Tom's refusal to become a slave trader reflect the social and moral beliefs of Washington Irving and the religious people of the time period?

The introduction to the Gutenberg on line edition of this story states that for Washington Irving, the true devil was not a supernatural being but slave traders and witch persecutors. Therefore, Tom's refusal to fit out a slave ship and become a slave trader reflects Irving's abhorrence of the slave trade. Tom may be corruptible, but slavery, "the black traffic," as it is called in the story, is beyond the pale of even a very bad man who has sold his soul to the devil:

This, however, Tom resolutely refused: he was bad enough in all conscience; but the devil himself could not tempt him to turn slave-trader.

In the story, we also learn that the "black man," the devil, persecutes the religious groups that fought slavery, such as Quakers.
Tom's horror at the slave trade reflected the view of abolitionist groups such as the Quakers, certain Methodists, and the Transcendentalists, among others, that slavery was an intolerably evil institution that must be abolished. These groups, on the whole, believed slavery to be both a social and a moral evil. Quaker John Woolman, for example, worked tirelessly to eradicate slave-owning among Quakers (some did own slaves in the eighteenth century—at least until Woolman persuaded them otherwise). Woolman, like others, based this stand both on how slavery created a sick society of overly pampered whites and overly abused blacks, as well as basing his stand on the violation of the Christian command that one should love one's neighbor as oneself.

In his dealings with "Old Scratch," Tom Walker refuses to outfit a slave ship as originally requested by the Devil: "Tom resolutely refused: he was bad enough in all conscience, but the Devil himself could not tempt him to turn slave-trader." Despite being one of the home ports for slave-trading vessels in 18th century America and the first colony to recognize slavery as a legal institution, Massachusetts—especially Boston—contained a population which gradually came to view slavery with distaste.
As early as 1701, pamphlets condemning slavery appeared in New England, usually penned by Puritans who hoped to refute earlier justifications for slavery based on religious tenets. Religious arguments tended to be used both for and against slavery. Massachusetts was also the first state to ban slavery in 1783. While arguments often contained religious concerns, there were also economic and secular reasons for the condemnation of slavery. Both Benjamin Franklin and the economist Adam Smith looked at slavery as an outmoded source of labor in a free market system. Moreover, the United States Constitution seemed to champion equality, which was another argument against slavery (notwithstanding the compromise which made each slave only count as two-thirds of a person).
One of Washington Irving's biographers claims the author was never an "outspoken abolitionist," yet it seems that having as loathsome a character as Tom Walker refuse to dabble in the selling of human beings is an explicit denouncement of the institution. On the other hand, it might also be argued that since Tom really was a detestable character, his choice of usury instead of slavery marks the former trade as far worse. Indeed, in 18th-century America, usury would have been frowned upon by both religious and secular groups, while slavery was often viewed as necessary to the economic well-being of the colonies.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/07/boston-hotbed-of-anti-slavery/

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/user?destination=node/78833

What is the time setting of Hoot by Carl Hiaasen?

The simple answer to this question is that Hoot, by Carl Hiaasen, is set in the present day. 
If we wish to be more specific, we can say that since Hoot was published in 2002, it is set in the present time of which it was written and published (2002). The objects, events, and themes of the novel are still very relevant to our own present day. Therefore, the easiest answer to this question would be that Hoot takes place during present times.   
There are many clues throughout the story that let readers know the novel is set in the present day. A few of these clues include:
1) The existence of cable and television:

Heatedly he banged a mayonnaise smeared fist on the side of the television console, to no avail. The cable had gone out in the middle of a Mother Paula's commercial!  

2) Use of modern colloquial language and slang:

"Hey, you moon somebody and that's it. You get your butt kicked"
"I don't blame you for being p.o.'ed," Roy said. 

3) Use/ existence of computers, Internet, Google, and video games:

The Eberhardts owned a home computer, which Roy was allowed to use for homework assignments and for playing video snowboard games. He was good at browsing the Internet, so with no difficulty he was able to Google up plenty of information about the burrowing owl.

Through the usage and placement of modern language and objects, Carl Hiaasen makes the novel's present day setting easy to detect.

College Algebra, Chapter 2, 2.1, Section 2.1, Problem 42

a.) Show that the points $(7,3)$ and $(3,7)$ are the same distance from the origin.
By using distance formula from origin to point $(7,3)$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_1 &= \sqrt{(3-0)^2 + (7-0)^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{3^2 + 7^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{9+49}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{58} \text{ units}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

By using distance formula from origin to point $(3,7)$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_2 &= \sqrt{(7-0)^2 + (3-0)^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{7^2 + 3^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{49+9}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{58} \text{ units}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


It shows that $d_1 = d_2$

b.) Show that the points $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ are the same distance from the origin.
By using distance formula from origin to point $(a,b)$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_3 &= \sqrt{(b-0)^2 + (a-0)^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{b^2 + a^2} \text{ units}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

By using distance formula from origin to point $(b,a)$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
d_4 &= \sqrt{(a-0)^2 + (b-0)^2}\\
\\
&= \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} \text{ units}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

It shows that $d_3 = d_4$

Why does the crowd kill Cinna the Poet in Act III of Julius Caesar? What is Shakespeare saying about the Roman public?

The crowd mistakes Cinna the poet for Cinna the conspirator, which shows the Romans are whipped into a frenzy and not really paying attention to details at that point.
There was a conspirator named Cinna. Unfortunately, poor Cinna the poet is mistaken for this other Cinna after Mark Antony turns the Roman citizens into an angry mob with his funeral speech. He stirs up anger and resentment toward the conspirators. By calling Brutus and the conspirators honorable men in one breath and calling them murderers in another, Antony tells the crowd he does not want mutiny while basically telling them to mutiny.

Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus,And Brutus Antony, there were an AntonyWould ruffle up your spirits and put a tongueIn every wound of Caesar that should moveThe stones of Rome to rise and mutiny (Act III, Scene 2).

After the speech, a group accosts Cinna the poet on the street and begins to interrogate him. He is confused because he was just innocently walking along. They ask him his name and where he is going. Although he tells them he is not a conspirator, they decide to kill him anyway.

CINNA THE POET
Truly, my name is Cinna.
First Citizen
Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.
CINNA THE POET
I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.
Fourth Citizen
Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses (Act III, Scene 3).

They want to kill Cinna when they think he is a conspirator. When they find out he is not, they want to kill him anyway; they are in such a frenzy that they just want an excuse to kill anyone. There is no reason to kill a poet for bad poetry. This crowd probably hasn’t even read his poetry. They are just out for blood.
Shakespeare's point about the people of Ancient Rome is that they are so stirred up by this point that they are bloodthirsty. This is why they kill an innocent man. They are a weapon and Antony loaded and pointed them. He understands that the people of Ancient Rome are a little wild sometimes.

What is the setting of The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare?

Setting refers to the time, place, and circumstances in which the action of a literary work occurs. This obviously also affects the writing's atmosphere and tone.
As far as place is concerned in The Merchant Of Venice, the setting shifts from one location to another. The action at the beginning unfold in the streets of Venice, where Antonio and his friends converse and where we are also introduced to the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. The scene then moves to Belmont, the home of the beautiful and wealthy heiress, Portia, a much-desired woman with whom Bassanio, Antonio's best friend, has fallen in love. 
The mood in the two scenes are in direct contrast. Venice is a bustling hive of activity since it is a merchant city, whilst Belmont exudes an aura of peace, romanticism and general conviviality. Venice is all about business, while Belmont, it seems, is about love.
Since these two settings form the major backdrop of the play, it is obvious that the scenes will flit from one area to another in each place. In Venice, for example, the scenes alternate from the streets of Venice to Shylock's house and then to the court in which Shylock's appeal for restitution is heard.
In Belmont, the scenes alternate from one room to another, to a garden, and then back to Venice and the Court of Justice where Portia, disguised as a lawyer, defends Antonio against Shylock's vengeful claim. After the dramatic scenes in court where a resolution is reached, the action moves back to an avenue that leads to Portia's house in Belmont, where peace prevails and everything ends well—a fitting finish to a rather dramatic tale.

College Algebra, Chapter 1, 1.5, Section 1.5, Problem 22

Find all real solutions of the equation $\displaystyle 1 + \frac{2x}{(x + 3)(x + 4)} = \frac{2}{x + 3} + \frac{4}{x + 4}$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

1 + \frac{2x}{(x + 3)(x + 4)} =& \frac{2}{x + 3} + \frac{4}{x + 4}
&& \text{Given}
\\
\\
(x + 3)(x + 4) + 2x =& 2(x + 4) + 4(x + 3)
&& \text{Multiply the LCD } (x + 3)(x + 4)
\\
\\
x^2 + 7x + 12 + 2x =& 2x + 8 + 4x + 12
&& \text{Expand using FOIL method and Distributive Property}
\\
\\
x^2 + 3x =& 8
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
\\
x^2 + 3x + \frac{9}{4} =& 8 + \frac{9}{4}
&& \text{Complete the square: add } \left( \frac{3}{2} \right)^2 = \frac{9}{4}
\\
\\
\left(x + \frac{3}{2} \right)^2 =& \frac{41}{4}
&& \text{Perfect Square}
\\
\\
x + \frac{3}{2} =& \pm \sqrt{\frac{41}{4}}
&& \text{Take the square root}
\\
\\
x =& \frac{-3}{2} \pm \frac{\sqrt{41}}{2}
&& \text{Subtract } \frac{3}{2} \text{ and simplify}
\\
\\
x =& \frac{-3 + \sqrt{41}}{2} \text{ and } x = \frac{-3 - \sqrt{41}}{2}
&& \text{Solve for } x

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

College Algebra, Chapter 2, Review Exercises, Section Review Exercises, Problem 14

Use completing the square to determine whether the equation $x^2 + y^2 - 6x - 10y + 34 = 0$ represents a circle or a point or has no graph.

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
x^2 + y^2 - 6x - 10y + 34 &= 0 && \text{Model}\\
\\
\left( x^2 - 6x + \underline{\phantom{xx }} \right) + \left( y^2 - 10y + \underline{\phantom{xx }} \right) &= -34 && \text{Group terms}\\
\\
\left( x^2 - 6x + 9 \right)^3 + ( y^2 - 10y + 25 ) &= -34 + 25 + 9 && \text{Complete the square: Add } \left( -\frac{6}{2} \right)^2 = 9 \text{ and } \left( \frac{-10}{2} \right)^2 = 25 \\
\\
(x-3)^2 + (y-5)^2 &= 0 && \text{Perfect square, the equation represents a point.}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

How did western expansion impact slavery and Native Americans?

The relationship between slavery and western expansion was a complex one. In more than one way, slavery (or, more precisely, the desire to cultivate cotton using enslaved people) provided an impetus for western expansion. This was especially true in what historians call the "old" Southwest, a region that extended from western Georgia to eastern Texas. This region, known as the "Black Belt" due to its dark, rich soils, was ideal for growing cotton, and thousands of people flocked to the region, bringing slaves with them, in an effort to get rich off the skyrocketing demand for cotton. This wave of western migration lasted from the 1820s to the 1840s and was accompanied by the growth of an internal slave trade in which at least one million African Americans were separated from their families and sold from places like Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina to the Deep South. Some Americans even hoped that westward expansion into the regions gained in the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession might be an avenue for the eventual end of slavery in the east, as planters sold their slaves westward. But in a sense, it was westward expansion that brought slavery to an end in the United States. Because Northerners were opposed to the expansion of slavery and Southerners were uncompromising in their demands that slavery be permitted in the western territories and new states, the issue provoked one crisis after another, which eventually ended in disunion and civil war.
As for Native peoples, westward expansion was an unmitigated catastrophe. In some cases, it led to the total destruction of Native peoples. From the old Southwest, where tribes like the Cherokee and Creek were removed to make room for cotton plantations and mines, to the Great Plains, were the Sioux, Cheyenne, and others were defeated by the US Army in the era following the Civil War, Native peoples were consistently pushed aside by the US government. Many were shunted onto reservations, while others were simply wiped out and dispersed. Even well-meaning Americans saw them as essentially primitive peoples who needed to accept "civilization" as offered by the American government. In short, westward expansion came at the expense of Native Americans.
https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion

In what way could Janie be considered a feminist? What weaknesses or flaws might a feminist see in her? I need help writing a 2 to 3 page paper on this topic citing examples and illustrations from the novel.

Janie could be seen as a feminist character or a character admired by feminist readers and critics, because by the end of the novel, she is confident and independent, comfortable in her own skin, and looking forward to living her life according to her own desires.
Janie could be considered a flawed feminist character, though, because of her early focus on romance and marriage. She seems to think of marriage and romantic love as her main goal in life. Many feminists would see this as reductive and would hope a feminist character would have more varied aims.
Janie is the victim of domestic abuse in two of her three marriages. This is a detail that feminist critics could seize on to show the inequality of the genders within marriage and the oppression of women. This could win Janie sympathy from feminist readers. However, readers might also want Janie to stand up for herself more, to fight back against Joe and later against Tea Cake. Ultimately, Janie kills Tea Cake while defending herself, so you could argue that she gains her true independence through that action, though she did love Tea Cake and partly kills him out of a sense of that love (he had rabies and was no longer himself).
In writing an essay on this topic, you should make an argument that identifies specific reasons Janie is a feminist but also admits to the specific flaws that might complicate the definition. As you build your argument in the body of the paper, cite examples from throughout Janie's life, as her character develops over the course of the novel. I'd probably start with her musing under the pear tree at the start of chapter three, as this sets up Janie's goals and expectations for her adult life. Then, you should cite examples from each of Janie's marriages showing how she is oppressed by her husbands and how she reacts. It's important to point out the last chapter of the novel, when Janie returns to Eatonville, and discuss how she has changed and how confident and hopeful she is, on her own, without a husband.

The main issue you will need to resolve before writing this paper is your definition of feminism. Evaluating someone as a "feminist" means having some clear sense of what does or does not constitute a feminist, something complicated by the fact that there are many different forms of feminism, and many different feminist scholars have written about Hurston and propounded a wide range of opinions about this novel. This answer will help you address what you need to cover in each section of your paper.
Introduction: In your introduction, you should address the history and definition of feminism. You should mention that feminism is normally divided into three "waves": a first one beginning in the mid-nineteenth century concerned with issues such as property rights and suffrage, a second wave beginning in the twentieth century focused on the interdependence of political and cultural inequality, and a third wave focused on a reconception of gender. In terms of period, Their Eyes Were Watching God would have been written during the era of first-wave feminism. 
Narrative: Janie Crawford, the protagonist of the novel, has been married three times. Her first marriage is to Logan Killicks, who exploits her badly. Her second is to Joe Starks, who is wealthy and successful but leaves her unfulfilled and uncomfortable with the traditional role of wife. The third marriage, to Tea Cake, is more deeply emotionally satisfying for her but to an external observer is problematic especially in the way that Tea Cake also attempts to assert a dominance over her. The ending of the book shows her becoming independent after Tea Cake's death. You might illustrate these points by recounting specific episodes such as Logan's insistence that Janie chop wood and feed mules, Starks's discomfort with Janie socializing as an equal with men, and Tea Cake's dishonesty about the $200 framed as protectiveness. 
Feminism: Janie's situation and Leafy's rape are examples of issues many feminists would argue exemplify different facets of patriarchy, and the characters in the book, especially Nanny and Janie, are concerned with how women can live in ways that are both safe and fulfilling in a world dominated by men. On the other hand, there is no overarching critique of patriarchy as such—rather, there is a concern with the lives of individual women, as this is a novel rather than a political tract. While one could argue that Janie has weaknesses as a character (especially in letting her desire override more practical judgment), there is some question as to whether that would be a subject of feminist critique. She is not portrayed as a well-educated woman involved in supporting or undermining a political cause but simply as a woman living in a particular place and time and trying to work out major life choices. Your conclusion should focus on whether you think Janie's final independence is an example of a feminist awareness or whether it is simply the personal choice of Janie as a character. 

int 1/(x^2-4x+9) dx Find the indefinite integral

int1/(x^2-4x+9)dx
Let's complete the square for the denominator of the integral as:
(x^2-4x+9)=(x-2)^2+5  
(x-2)^2+(sqrt(5))^2
int1/(x^2-4x+9)dx=int1/((x-2)^2+(sqrt(5))^2)dx
Let's apply the integral substitution,
substitute u=x-2
du=1dx
=int1/(u^2+(sqrt(5))^2)du
Now use the standard integral :int1/(x^2+a^2)=1/aarctan(x/a)
=1/sqrt(5)arctan(u/sqrt(5))
substitute back u=(x-2) and add a constant C to the solution,
=1/sqrt(5)arctan((x-2)/sqrt(5))+C
 

how do marley's actions suggest that he can be mischievous

One indication of Marley's mischievous spirt is that Scrooge's first sighting of Marley's ghost comes when Marley shows his face in the door knocker, with his spectacles pushed up on his head. Scrooge then thinks he sees a "locomotive hearse" going up the wide staircase ahead of him as he enters his house. Following this, he sees Marley's face in all the tiles around his fireplace. It is as if Marley's is teasing Scrooge, playing games, and trying to get a rise out of him before he finally appears. To add to the drama and sense of mischief, Marley's ghost also makes all the bells in the house ring at once, and then has the cellar doors bang open.
That is quite an entrance. And then, when at last he arrives fully as a ghost, and Scrooge still refuses to believe in him, Marley is again mischievous. 

He raised a frightful cry, and shook its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself from falling in a swoon.

Marley could have appeared and spoken to Scrooge without all the drama, but that apparently is not his style. 
 

Why is dialect necessary in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Dialect is very important in the novel. Lee uses dialect in To Kill a Mockingbird in order to give the reader a sense of the way the people in Maycomb talked. Dialect is used to denote class in the South. Many people who use the Southern dialect are stereotypically considered ignorant and uneducated. The Ewells of Maycomb fit into this category, and they predominantly use the Southern dialect. They seldom use the final "g" at the end of gerunds, and the word "ain't" appears quite often in their speech. Atticus Finch, while a member of the Maycomb community, uses standard English, thus denoting his level of education. Scout's use of the Southern vernacular, though she lives in the house with Atticus, may lead the reader to infer that she is influenced heavily by her peer group at school and in the community. Even Tom Robinson's dialect, with the lack of an "r" sound at the end of some words, demonstrates how people believed African Americans in the South talked during that time period.
Lee's use of dialect can be compared to other works based in the South from that time period, such as Gone with the Wind. By using the Southern patterns of speech in her novel, Lee gave the reader a sense of being "there" and thus created one of the most powerful novels of her generation.

The story takes place in Maycomb County, Alabama. In the South, particularly at the time during which this story is set—the 1930s—people spoke with a distinct Southern dialect. The narrative reflects this by leaving the "g" off of gerunds when the characters speak and includes vocabulary, such as "reckon," which was more commonly used by people in this region.
For this story, the Southern dialect is necessary to evoke the setting and to establish authenticity. Lee wanted the readers to believe that they were reading conversations between Southerners. On the other hand, the story is narrated by the adult Scout who does not speak with a conventional "Southern" voice but instead in standard American English. When she narrates, the "g" is replaced on gerunds, and Southern slang disappears in favor of more formal language.

What is the message of the poem "Life" by Charlotte Bronte?

Initially, the narrator suggests that sometimes life can seem bleak but then the sadness gives way to happier times. She says, "Oft a little morning rain / Foretells a pleasant day." In other words, things might look dark in one moment, but, soon, the darkness dissipates and everything gets bright again. Further, she says, "Sometimes there are clouds of gloom, / But these are transient all." The gloomy times will always pass and lead to happier ones. In fact, the happy times will pass too, and so that is all the more reason we should enjoy them while we have them. She says that we must "Enjoy them as they fly!" At some point, the good times end, and "Death . . . steps in" or "sorrow seems to win"; soon enough, however, "Hope again elastic springs." Hope is "buoyant" and will always return to carry us with its "golden wings." Everything is "transient" then—the good times and the bad, the bright moments as well as the dark—all we must do is keep our courage about us, because it will "quell despair," according to this narrator.

Bronte's speaker asserts that the way to look at life is optimistically; moreover, she believes that hard times actually make us stronger. She claims that the hard times in life will be fleeting. She also puts forth the belief that experiencing the hard times is what make the good times enjoyable.
The speaker also makes the point that life passes very quickly, and so it is important to spend one's days as cheerfully as possible. She acknowledges that when we lose the ones we care about, we can question the point of life, but she reiterates her belief that hope will return, and that we should embrace it when it does.
The speaker's final words are an exhortation to not shrink from hard times, but to meet them "manfully, fearlessly," because courage can "quell despair."

How can I write an argumentative essay against Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid"?

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is an interesting article that isn't necessarily directed at Google. Rather, it is directed at the Internet and the general digital media that is so prevalent in today's society. Carr argues that Internet usage could have adverse effects on cognition. It might diminish people's capacity and ability for concentration and contemplation. He argues that the Internet offers too many distractions and small bits of information, and this never lets people slow down and really analyze and think about things.
In order to write an argumentative essay against Carr's article, you will need to come up with two main lines of argument. First, explain how Carr's logic is flawed. Second, explain how the Internet is actually making us smarter. This twofold attack works well because by showing how Carr's argument is flawed, it takes some of his credibility away. That will, in turn, open your reader up to your own arguments about how and why the Internet is making us smarter.
Structurally, I would start this paper with a question or a quote. A question works well to grab readers because it forces your reader to start thinking about potential answers. A quote would work well because you are already being forced to analyze Carr's article. You could use a quote from his article that you intend to blow apart. Be sure to end the opening paragraph with a clear thesis statement. Since I recommended a two-part attack on Carr's article, I also recommend a two-part thesis statement to help set up this kind of paper. For example:

Although Carr's article appears to discuss solid evidence against the Internet, his assumptions about it and human intelligence are incredibly skewed and shortsighted.

This thesis alerts your reader right away that Carr's article "appears" correct, but it isn't. The thesis also allows you to discuss his arguments as well as provide your own arguments for how Google is making us smarter.

How does Mr. Collins behave when Elizabeth turns down his offer?

As we know, Mr. Collins does not have very high emotional intelligence and interacts with others almost entirely on the basis of external status-markers. He uses stilted language as if he has learned how to talk to people by memorizing phrases from a book. It is as if he has no interiority and, therefore, no other way to judge a human being's worth or know how to relate to a person other than by their outward status.
He makes the decision to propose to one of the Bennet girls on the rational assumption that it would make sense to marry one of the daughters of the estate he is going to inherit. This is also a humanitarian gesture, as it would keep the daughters from being thrown out of their home upon his inheriting it (though he could also, say, chose to let them stay—an idea that doesn't seem to cross his mind).
However, the marriage proposal is primarily a calculated gesture: he very much assumes that given his relative money and power and their lack of the same, one of the daughters is sure to accept him. Therefore he can get this "problem" (of Lady de Bourgh pressuring him marry and he slavishly does whatever she bids because she is his social superior) "solved" quickly and efficiently.
His courtship is a hollow show. He is first interested in Jane as the oldest and prettiest, but when Mrs. Bennet suggests Jane is about to be engaged, he immediately turns to Elizabeth, second oldest and second prettiest. The daughters are, to him, largely interchangeable.
When Lizzie turns down his proposal (she can't stand him), it is such a shock to him that he can only believe she is playing out a role. He has all the externals she needs, such as a good job and social status, and she is without a dowry, so he is stunned at her refusal. He therefore decides she is playing out a courtship game in which a lady must first refuse a man. It takes some doing on her part—and hence becomes comic—for her to convince him she is serious. He is utterly oblivious to what he is as a person or if he and Elizabeth might be personally compatible, completely living as he does by external social markers.
Think about this in light of the future proposal of Mr. Darcy. Are there an uncomfortable number of parallels in both men assuming without a doubt that they will be accepted because of their social status and money? Is it any wonder Elizabeth gets tired of men being arrogant, clueless jerks to her and blows up at Darcy's proposal with a volcanic explosion?

When Elizabeth rejects Mr. Collins's marriage proposal, he feels, at first, that she is engaging in a practice that many apparently fashionable and elegant young ladies do: initially rejecting him so as to increase his feelings for her when she means to accept him in the end. He simply cannot believe that someone in her position could actually refuse someone in his. She is one of five girls, whose family estate is entailed away to be settled upon Mr. Collins himself when Mr. Bennet dies; Elizabeth has very little money and only "her charms" to recommend her to potential suitors. He feels that he's doing her a great favor and honor by proposing to her at all. Once she assures him that she's not simply behaving coquettishly, Mr. Collins is astonished to learn that she feels that they cannot make each other happy. He reminds her that it is unlikely she will ever receive another proposal of marriage again since she has no money, pretty and likable though she is.

What are some quotes about choices?

Jonas lives in a world where most choices are made for him.  If anything, his society gives its members the absence of choice.  For example, in chapter 13 readers get the following verbal exchange between Jonas and the Giver. 

"Oh." Jonas was silent for a minute. "Oh, I see what you mean. It wouldn't matter for a newchild's toy. But later it does matter, doesn't it? We don't dare to let people make choices of their own.""Not safe?" The Giver suggested."Definitely not safe," Jonas said with certainty. "What if they were allowed to choose their own mate? And chose wrong?" 

At this point in the story, Jonas is starting to question parts of the Sameness.  He admits that there are some things that he wishes he had a choice for.  Jonas wishes that he could at least have the choice to choose his shirt color in the morning.  

"Well . . . " Jonas had to stop and think it through. "If everything's the same, then there aren't any choices! I want to wake up in the morning and decide things! A blue tunic or a red one?"

Readers find out that the Sameness was chosen to be placed on the people.  The people chose to have a society built on the absence of many choices, and at one point, Jonas adamantly states that it was the wrong choice.  

"Our people made that choice, the choice to go to the Sameness." 
[...]
"We shouldn't have!" Jonas said fiercely.  

As the book progresses, and Jonas gets more and more memories, he begins to really resent the Sameness and the entire community set up.  These feelings will eventually cause Jonas to stop taking his pills and finally leave the community completely.  

The next morning, for the first time, Jonas did not take his pill. Something within him, something that had grown there through the memories, told him to throw the pill away. 

In chapter 22, there is this quote.  

It was as simple as that. Once he had yearned for choice. Then, when he had had a choice, he had made the wrong one: the choice to leave. And now he was starving.

It's a bit of a depressing quote, but I still always get the feeling that even though Jonas thinks he made the wrong choice, he still appreciates the fact that he made the choice at all. 

What was Pip doing in the graveyard?

Pip was visiting the graves of his deceased family members. Pip is an orphan, which is why he lives with his older sister and her husband, Joe Gargery. In the days before modern medicine, it was depressingly common for whole families to be decimated by diseases that are nowadays quite easily treatable, so Pip's is by no means an isolated case.
Pip's orphanhood is important because it establishes his psychological need for mother and father figures throughout the story. In addition to Miss Havisham, there's the escaped convict Abel Magwitch, whom Pip encounters as he stands at the graves of his parents. In due course, Magwitch will become the father that Pip never really knew, acting as his benefactor and providing him with a substantial sum of money that will enable him to live out his dream as a gentleman of quality in London.

After a little information about the origin of Pip's name, we meet the story's protagonist in a cemetery in an overgrown churchyard, forgotten along the marshes. This is where Pip's mother, father, and siblings are all buried. Pip does not say exactly what he is doing in the graveyard other than reading the names on the tombstones and holding back tears. Perhaps Dickens used this setting to set the dark mood of much of this story and to tell us that Pip has no family left.
It is here that an unknown man grabs Pip and tells him to stop his crying, as he is making too much noise. The man, who is soaking wet and looks to be in a bad condition, threatens Pip and orders him to bring him some food and a file the next day. Pip is thoroughly frightened and agrees to comply with the stranger's wishes.

What did Stanley from the book Holes learn about himself?

At the beginning of the story, we see Stanley as a quiet, passive kid who is prone to being bullied and taken advantage of. He simply accepts his sentencing to Camp Green Lake and goes with absolute compliance (even though he did not steal the shoes).

Stanley was not a bad kid. He was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. He'd just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We see this compliance follow him to camp, where he conforms to the expectations set by the warden. However, as the story progresses, we see Stanley take more control over his emotions and recognize his importance as an individual. Stanley is able to unveil the truth about Kissin' Kate Barlow's treasure (stolen from Stanley's relative, Elya). While uncovering this truth, Stanley also reverses his family curse when he carries Zero (a descendent of Madame Zeroni) up the mountain. With this act alone, he proves his bravery and compassion toward his friend.
Stanley Yelnats learns that he is more than just an unlucky kid. He learns that he is actually capable of redeeming himself and his entire family. Although his family is cursed, Stanley is the one who breaks this curse. In the end, Stanley has fulfilled his role as a dynamic character. He leaves behind the insecure, overweight child and becomes a man. 
 

Does the epic The Rape of the Lock apply in any way to society today? What are two passages in The Rape of the Lock that could serve as satiric commentaries on people's behavior today?

In The Rape of the Lock, Pope satirizes human vanity and specifically the fashionable upper-class English society of his own time. At the start of canto II he describes his heroine, Belinda, in words which, with a few adjustments, would apply to any number of celebrities at a "red carpet" event of our own time:

Bright as the sun, her eyes the gazers strike,
And, like the sun, they shine on all alike.
Yet graceful ease, and sweetness void of pride,
Might hide her faults, if belles had faults to hide.

Later, at the climax of the action in canto V, Pope has another woman, Clarissa (who has helped to facilitate the snipping off of Belinda's lock of hair) question this credo by which physical charms are held in esteem above all else:

"Say, why are beauties praised and honored most,
The wise man's passion, and the vain man's toast?
Why decked with all that land and sea afford,
Why angels called, and angel-like adored?"

It is a feminist message. As in our time, however, the two conflicting messages seem to be reconciled by Pope. Today, we see no contradiction between the gender equality that feminism represents and the fact of independent women being admired for their beauty as well as other qualities. At the close of his mock epic, Pope makes the point that although beauty takes different forms in the eye of the beholder, the simple fact of its being celebrated (by a writer such as himself, or by anyone) is what gives it lasting significance and makes it endure:

This lock, the Muse shall consecrate to fame,
And midst the stars inscribe Belinda's name.

Discuss the theme of family and its effect on the characters of Divergent.

Family is central to the Divergent story. In the book, Roth examines how family dynamics affect the heroine, her allies, and her enemies. During Visiting Day, Tris notes that Drew’s and Molly's families are absent, demonstrating the extent of the social stigma transfers endure. Meanwhile, Al's parents voice a superficial support for the status quo but privately expect their son to defy social expectations. The combination of parental and societal pressures eventually drives Al to despair and suicide. During Visiting Day, Will's elder sister, Cara, gets into an altercation with Natalie (Tris's mother) about Abnegation's hoarding of fresh foods. The exchange highlights the burgeoning distrust and ensuing estrangement between the factions.
Additionally, Tris and Tobias have markedly different relationships with their fathers. Tris's relationship with her father matures as the story progresses. In the beginning, Andrew's investment in the five-faction system leads him to withhold his approval from his daughter. However, he is soon forced to confront his bias and readjust his expectations when Erudite sends Dauntless soldiers to execute Abnegation civilians. Andrew then accepts his daughter's leadership and supports her in her mission to defeat Jeanine. The experience leads Andrew to relate to Tris as an adult, and the dynamic between them changes. Conversely, Tobias keeps Marcus at arm's length because of Marcus's tendency to dominate the space between the two. Marcus's abuse and Abnegation's unilateral rule is the catalyst for Tobias's defection to Dauntless. Their relationship remains emotionally stagnant throughout the story.

Need a good theme for "Homeage for my hips"

Lucille Clifton's "Homage to my Hips" presents a refreshing perspective on body positivity and femininity. While the grand majority of past poetry focused on women has portrayed them as reserved, demure, and often silent, Clifton's poem is bold, self-assured, and powerful. The narrator not only describes her hips as "big" and "free," but also "mighty" and, finally, "magic." The narrator states that "they don't fit into little/ petty places," suggesting that the hips (and through synecdoche the woman herself), cannot be confined (4-5). Not only that, but the woman feels no shame in not fitting in, rejecting society's expectations as she says that her hips "go where they want to go" and "do what they want to do" (9-10). Further, not only does the poem display pride toward a part of the body that women were traditionally told to divert attention from, but Clifton's poem deliberately treats self-confidence as integral to the narrator's identity, and even as a magical force. These factors help the thematic concepts of power, confidence, identity, and pride to emerge. These concepts can be used together to express the theme that "self-assurance is very powerful" or that "a woman's strength lies not in her ability to fulfill society's expectations, but in her ability to fulfill her own."

How does Aristophanes include the theme of love in Lysistrata?

Lysistrata is more a comedy about married sex than about married love, and this observation in and of itself may contain some ideas about how Aristophanes treats the theme of love in this play.
In this play, wives withhold sex from their husbands as a way of protesting their husbands' participation in the Peloponnesian War; they insist that the men stop fighting and killing each other. The theme of love is easy to trace in this description, as the play focuses on the relationships between husbands and wives. As the wives do not want their husbands to get hurt or get killed, that must be some proof of affection, attachment, and even love. Aristophanes does not treat love as a clearcut romantic emotion between wives and husbands, however; it is not loving, for example, to use sex as a means of manipulation (even though the manipulation is meant to be life-saving).
Love is not treated very seriously in Lysistrata, which plays on traditional and historical views of sex and gender roles: the men are more interested in sex than the women, and the women use this to get what they want from the men.

Why do you think Jerry wants to go to the wild bay instead of the beach he is used to?

To Jerry, the wild bay represents adventure, danger, and an opportunity to exert his individuality.
In previous years, Jerry has always stayed on the sandy beach with his mother. To him, the beach possibly represents safety, comfort, and the unyielding sense of being tied to his mother's apron strings. So, as he looks across at the "wild and rocky bay," Jerry sees an opportunity to put his emerging masculine identity to the test.
Sensing that she needs to refrain from overly coddling her son, Jerry's mother gives him permission to explore the bay. Ecstatic with the possibilities that await him, Jerry swims out to sea and eventually ends up on the other side of the bay. There, he sees some boys dive off a congregation of rocks, and finally, he notices how each of the boys take turns swimming through an underwater tunnel.
Jerry sees this challenge as an invitation to prove his courage. Even though the boys see his presence as an intrusion at best, Jerry feels the need to prove to himself that he's able to do what the bigger boys have done. So begins his adventure to conquer the mysteries of the underwater tunnel, and in his eventual victory, Jerry finds the affirmation that he's looking for.

1. Which do you think is a better form of unionism, industrial unions or trade unions, based on the evidence from the latter part of the nineteenth century? How does each type of union affect individual workers and promote overall betterment for the working class? Give examples from union events and specific unions 2. How and why were the Progressive Reformers able to bring the "theory" of American equality closer to reality when the Labor Union reformers seemed to fail? 3. Explain Victorian morality and sexuality in light of the reforms happening. Does Progressivism show a rejection of the Victorians or an extension of their morality?

Based on the late 1800s, I would say that trade unions were better than industrial unions. Both unions wanted to improve working conditions. The goals of each union included higher pay, shorter hours, and better working conditions. The industrial unions, such as the Knights of Labor, also attempted to deal with social issues such as ending child labor and fighting for equal pay for women. In the late 1800s, the trade unions had more success than the industrial unions. One reason for this was that the trade unions stuck to economic issues. The American Federation of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers, believed this would bring more credibility to the union movement. Another reason for the success of trade unions is that they only represented skilled workers. These workers were more difficult to replace if a strike occurred. The industrial unions represented skilled and unskilled workers. Since it was easier to replace unskilled workers, many strikes led by industrial unions failed. Strikes in the railroad industry, such as the Pullman Strike, and in the steel industry, such as the Homestead Strike, are examples of unsuccessful labor actions. There also was violence associated with these strikes, which harmed the image of the industrial unions. The Haymarket Riot, connected with the Knights of Labor, had a great deal of violence, leading to the decline of this union.

The debate between industrial and trade unions divided the labor movement in the late nineteenth-century. The American Federation of Labor, the AFL, was formed in 1886 as a craft union under Samuel Gompers. Its philosophy was to unite mostly skilled workers in certain trades, so it was a trade union. Earlier unions such as the Knights of Labor and later unions (such as the International Workers of the World in the early twentieth-century) were industrial unions that were open to all workers. There were disadvantages and advantages for each kind of union. The Knights of Labor was largely discredited by the late 1800s, and the American Federation of Labor gained traction in political circles by representing skilled workers. On the other hand, the AFL excluded many workers, especially women, African Americans, and unskilled workers, causing it to be divisive and unrepresentative of the entire working class.
Progressive reformers may have been more successful in certain ways than the labor unions because they largely came from the predominantly white middle to upper classes (a notable exception was Ida B. Wells, an African American journalist who lead a campaign against lynching). For example, Lincoln Steffens, the muckraking journalist who wrote The Shame of the Cities, was from an elite background and was educated at the University of California by leading psychologists of the day in Paris. Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House, was from a politically prominent Protestant family. Labor unions, on the other hand, were associated with immigrants and non-Protestants. Several labor leaders were Jewish or Catholic, and unions strived to be inclusive. Therefore, the unions had a harder time being accepted by the Protestant elite, and labor unions were tinged by their (at times tangential) association with radicalism and anarchism. You should also examine what your text has to say on this subject.
The Progressive reformers largely embraced Victorian ideals (such as abstaining from sex before marriage) rather than rejected them. For example, social workers and workers at settlement houses were taught to reinforce Protestant ideals, such as marriage and cleanliness. The temperance movement, part of Progressivism, associated drinking with lewdness and sought to purify American culture of elements that were not Victorian in nature. The Progressives were Victorian at heart.

Re-read Victor’s speech to the sailors on board the ship. What is your reaction to this speech? How does this speech compare to his advice to Walton to “seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries?” What has Victor learned—or not learned—about the pursuit of knowledge?

When Walton's crew makes him promise that he will turn the ship around, a weakened Victor rouses himself to give what he intends to be, essentially, a pep talk. He says to the crew,

You were hereafter to be hailed as the benefactors of your species, your names adored as belonging to brave men who encountered death for honour and the benefit of mankind. And now, behold, with the first imagination of danger, or, if you will, the first mighty and terrific trial of your courage, you shrink away and are content to be handed down as men who had not strength enough to endure cold and peril; and so, poor souls, they were chilly and returned to their warm firesides. Why, that requires not this preparation; ye need not have come thus far and dragged your captain to the shame of a defeat merely to prove yourselves cowards!

Victor tries to inspire the men by first mentioning that they could be heroes if they are willing to go on and attempt to make discoveries that will benefit all of humankind. However, he chides them for wanting to turn around at the first sign of danger (which is, frankly, quite real and not at all imaginary, as he implies). He condemns them for lacking strength, for wanting to return to safety, and, finally, for allowing their captain to hope for greatness while they are turning cowards.
These words seem to stand in almost direct opposition to the advice Victor gives Walton earlier in the text: "seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries." Here, Victor tells Walton to be satisfied without achieving great things; he advises him to remain calm and not get wrapped up in his passion for discovery. Ultimately, it seems that Victor is unable to take his own advice or even to issue it consistently to others.

How does heat travel from one object to another?

Heat is just a form of energy. Without intervention from some other force, heat will always transfer from objects of higher heat to objects of lower heat according to the 2nd Rule of Thermodynamics. 
Let's assume two solid objects. Two solid objects in direct contact with one another will transfer heat energy by thermal conduction. Although these objects are solid, assuming they have any heat energy (that is, their temperature is not absolute zero, or zero Kelvin), their molecules will still move at some rate. Heat transfer occurs at the molecular level. The objects' molecules move around at a rate proportional to their temperature; when one molecule from the hotter object collides with a molecule from the colder, some of its energy is transferred to the cooler object. Imagine this occurring many, many times between two objects of different temperature and you get some idea of how heat is transferred between objects in direct contact.
If the objects are not touching, more complex heat transfer mechanics may come into play, such as convection, which is heat transfer within a moving fluid, such as water or air. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics still applies, and heat still is transferred from molecule to molecule, but turbulence can make this process more complex to predict.
Another form of heat transfer between two objects that are not touching is radiation. Any object with a temperature above absolute zero emits thermal (electromagnetic) radiation. This heat radiation can be seen in the infrared (non-visible) spectrum and will also heat up an object over time, in the case of the sun and planet Earth or coals on a stove and meat or vegetables on the stovetop.
Heat transfer also depends upon the specific heat of an object. A material's specific heat determines the rate at which heat transfers to and from a given material. For example, metals generally have a lower specific heat than water or wood, which is why they can feel uncomfortably hot to the touch on a summer day--heat transfers more quickly both into and out of metals than wood. Heat transfers more quickly to your skin from metal than from wood, which may feel more comfortable to the touch even though it is the same temperature as the metal.
Hope this answers your question!

This depends on the conditions of the environment in which the objects are found. For example, the objects can be physically touching each other, they can be separated by a medium (a liquid or gas), or they can be separated by vacuum. Heat will be transferred differently in all three conditions. 
In the first two examples, heat is transferred through massive particles interacting with each other. Heat itself is just another way of talking about how much kinetic energy a molecule has, and that energy can be transferred to another molecule by making them collide. When the objects are in direct contact, they directly collide with each other, such as an object on a hotplate. If they are separated by a medium, then the medium will also participate in the heat transfer, such as when an ice cube dissolves in water. Another comparison would be striking two billiard balls together, compared to hitting pins with a bowling ball. In each case, the energy is distributed to each of the molecules interacting in the system.
In the third example, there aren't really any molecules available in the medium to transfer energy from one object to another. Instead, the process of radiation involves the release of energetic photons, a form of electromagnetic energy, that can be absorbed by the second object, exciting its electrons and therefore increasing its kinetic energy. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatra.html

To what political figure in Russian history does Jones correspond?

Mr. Jones corresponds to that last czar of Russia, Nicholas II. While he was not an alcoholic like Mr. Jones, the czar mismanaged his country the same way Mr. Jones mismanages the farm.
Hunger drives the animals to rebel after Mr. Jones gets drunk and fails to feed them. A similar situation arose in Russia in 1917. Due to the czar's complete mismanagement of the country's role in World War I, people were going hungry, which became an unbearable situation there, just as it does for Mr. Jones's animals.
As in Czar Nicholas's case in Russia, the mismanagement on Mr. Jones's farm did not happen overnight. The animals, like the poorer people living in Russia, had been abused for a long time. Both the animals and the Russian people only needed a trigger incident to rebel.

sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^(n-1)(3/2)^n/n^2 Use the Root Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series.

In using Root test on a series sum a_n, we determine the limit as:
lim_(n-gtoo) root(n)(|a_n|)= L
or
lim_(n-gtoo) |a_n|^(1/n)= L
 Then, we follow the conditions:
a) Llt1 then the series is absolutely convergent.
b) Lgt1 then the series is divergent.
c) L=1 or does not exist  then the test is inconclusive. The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.
We may apply the Root Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^(n-1) *(3/2)^n/n^2 .
lim_(n-gtoo) |((-1)^(n-1) *(3/2)^n/n^2 )^(1/n)| =lim_(n-gtoo) |(-1)^((n-1)*1/n)(3/2)^(n*1/n)/n^(2*1/n)|
            =lim_(n-gtoo) |(-1)^(n/n-1/n)(3/2)^(n/n)/n^(2/n)|
            =lim_(n-gtoo)( 1 * (3/2)^1/n^(2/n))
           =lim_(n-gtoo) (3/2)/n^(2/n)
Note: |(-1)^(n/n-1/n)| = 1
Apply the limit property: lim_(x-gta)[(f(x))/(g(x))] =(lim_(x-gta) f(x))/(lim_(x-gta) g(x)).
lim_(n-gtoo) (3/2)/n^(2/n)=(lim_(n-gtoo) 3/2)/(lim_(n-gtoo)n^(2/n))
                  = ((3/2))/1
                  =3/2 or 1.5
The limit value L = 3/2 or 1.5 satisfies the condition: Lgt1 since 3/2gt 1 or 1.5gt1 .
Thus, the series sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^(n-1) *(3/2)^n/n^2 is divergent. 

Why did the grandfather come to visit the boy? Was it to read him The Princess Bride?

Billy, who narrates the novel The Princess Bride, is a young man who does not enjoy reading and would much prefer more active pursuits like sports. His teachers try to get him interested in reading—they see his potential—but they cannot convince him that reading is a worthwhile activity. 
One day, he comes down with pneumonia and this causes him to be sidelined for a long time. He cannot participate in any activities, and he is too weak for anything but laying in bed. 

I was pounding the top of the radio to get it to work right and that was how they discovered I was delirious with pneumonia. Pneumonia today is not what it once was, especially when I had it. Ten days or so in the hospital and then home for a long recuperating period. I guess it was three weeks in bed, a month maybe. No energy, no games even. I was just this lump going through a strength-gathering time, period. 

In the book, Billy's father begins reading him the story in his broken English. In the movie version, it is his grandfather who reads the book to him. Billy's sickness is not specified in the movie. Additionally, he is playing video games when his grandfather arrives, which is different from the book.  

What situation is presented in the poem "I Hear America Singing" by Walt Whitman?

"I Hear America Singing" is a hymn of praise to the American worker. At the time when it was written in 1860, the United States was experiencing a rapid rate of industrialization. More people were moving from the country to the cities, performing a wider variety of jobs in the new economy. Whitman's poem reflects this change.
Whitman sets out a long list of various occupations, including carpenters, wood-cutters, plowmen, and mechanics. But they're not just working; they're singing as they work. They all have different jobs and different songs, but their voices come together to provide a harmonious whole. Whatever they do and whatever they sing, all of these workers are American, and their common endeavor is a testimony to American greatness, made greater still by a growing, dynamic economy.
The poem is intensely patriotic but also has a profoundly universal message. Music connects us as human beings, whatever our nationality and whatever we do to earn our daily crust.

What is the role of the women in the society implied through Epic of Gilgamesh?

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, women play a variety of roles, both good and evil in nature.
On one hand, women are presented as a civilizing force and source of wisdom. Shamhat the sacred prostitute is more than just an object to be used by men for pleasure; she is vital in Enkidu's development from wild man to full-fledged member of human society. Intercourse with her for six days and seven nights is not meant merely to provide him with a good time, but to initiate him into the adult human world and make him whole as an intelligent individual. Shamhat also clothes and feeds Enkidu when his animal companions abandon him, providing a maternal bent to their bond as well. Gilgamesh's mother, Ninsun, is also presented in a positive, supportive light, looking out for her son and giving him guidance. These characters show the male ones how to best live in the world.
On the other hand, women in Gilgamesh can be dangerous destabilizers of human society as well. The goddess Ishtar reacts badly when Gilgamesh rejects her advances, referencing how poorly she's treated her former lovers. Concerned with nothing but getting back at Gilgamesh, she sends the Bull of Heaven down to wreak havoc upon the earth, destroying terrain and killing many. Ishtar in this way represents the dark side of the feminine— overemotional and destructive when men do not bow to her will. She's even able to force her father, Anu, to lend her the Bull of Heaven when she threatens to raise the dead to feed upon the living.
So in the end, the story shows women both as wise nurturers and spiteful destroyers.

The role played by women is one of the central themes in The Epic of Gilgamesh and the author successfully and effectively utilized different female characters to represent and portray different aspects and concept of women in the Mesopotamian society. The epic story looks into humanity's pursuit for immortality as well as the significance of boundaries between the realms occupied by gods, humans and animals. To a large extend, the story focuses on Gilgamesh, the King of Uruk who is partly god and partly human.
The role of women in The Epic of Gilgamesh is both complex and multifaceted. In one portrayal, women come out as sex objects and this has been illustrated at the start of the story where Gilgamesh the King rapes and violates any woman he sees fit. Additionally, in the story, Jastrow & Albert (2010) describe how Shamhat, a priestess is forced to go into the wilderness to have intercourse with Enkidu who is a beast. Nonetheless, women have been represented as people with unique wisdom and skills. While Shamhat may have been sent to have intercourse with the beast Enkidu, she played a vital role in transforming him into a civilized person. For instance, Shamhat was actively involved in teaching Enkidu different aspects of humanity such as food and clothing. In addition to this, Jastrow & Albert (2010) show women's wisdom through Siduri, a tavern keeper who after being consulted by Gilgamesh about eternal life, she wisely tells him to forget about immortality and instead concentrate on understanding what it means to be human. In regards to this, Siduri tells Gilgamesh "fill your belly with good things, dance and be merry for this too is the lot of man" (102). As such, women have been represented as valuable advisors particularly to men and this allows them to influence men's decisions.
Women have also been used in the story to represent the locative boundaries. Different female characters have been used to set these boundaries and they include Shamhat, Siduri, and Ishtar among others. Shamhat the priestess represents the boundary between beasts/animals and humans and this is seen through her relationship with Enkidu. In addition to this, Ninsun, Gilgamesh's mother effectively keeps his son Gilgamesh in check in his pursuit for immortality. After Gilgamesh dreamt of axes and meteors, his mother Ninsun understands the meaning and advices him in a way that will ensure he remains in his place.
In conclusion, while the role and representation of women in the story may seem complex and even confusing at first due to diversified and wide range of characters, the story brings out different aspects of women. Women are represented as tools of sex, possess varied perceptions and attitudes towards sexuality, act as valuable advisors and act as the boundary between different locative boundaries.

Works Cited
Jastrow, Morris. and Albert T. Clay. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Los Angeles, California: Indo-European Publishing.com, 2010.

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, women play the role of destroyers. They are portrayed as dangerous, cunning, and ruthless. For instance, Ishtar asks for Gilgamesh’s hand in marriage and promises that she will fulfil his deepest desires. However, Gilgamesh is cautious due to Ishtar’s previous relationships, all of which ended dreadfully. He reminds her of how badly she treated her former lovers when things did not go her way.
Women in the epic poem also play the role of mothers. One of the main characters in the poem is Ninsun, Gilgamesh’s mother. She is always supportive of her son. For instance, she asks Shamash, the Sun God, to give Gilgamesh favor as he goes to Humbamba’s home. She begs the Sun God:
“Entrust him to the care of the watches of the night!” (Tablet III).
The caring nature of a mother is revealed when Ninsun asks Shamash to guide and protect Gilgamesh.

Women play a complex role in the society portrayed by The Epic of Gilgamesh. On the one hand, they are treated as sex objects. At the beginning of the story, Gilgamesh rapes any woman he wants to, and the priestess/prostitute (depending on your translation) Shamhat is sent into the wilderness to have intercourse with Enkidu.
However, women also represented wisdom. Shamhat, for example, may have been used as a sex object, but the act of intercourse began the process of Enkidu's civilization from beast to man. Shamhat also taught Enkidu about clothing and human food, for instance. Another example of a woman representing wisdom is Siduri, the tavern keeper whom Gilgamesh asks about eternal life. Siduri tells Gilgamesh to stop focusing on immortality--an attribute of the gods--and instead focus on what it means to be human.
Let your stomach be full, always be happy, night and day, make every day a delight, night and day play and dance. Your clothes should be clean, your head should be washed, you should be bathe in water. Look proudly on the little one holding your hand. Let your mate be always blissful in your lions. This, then, is the work of mankind (Tablet X).
It is telling that Siduri had the "proper" view of life, while Gilgamesh--a great king--did not.

In the book "The Bride Price" by Buchi Emecheta, what are Okonkwo's traits and how do they contribute to the understanding of the values in a patriarchal society? How does his character and actions contribute to the plot of the story? Based on the cultural context, what is the irony of Chike's situation?

In the story, Okonkwo is Ezekiel's brother; after Ezekiel's death, he takes Ezekiel's widow, Ma Blackie, as his fourth wife. Even in post-colonial Nigeria, the traditions are such that a woman's fate is still decided by the men in her family.
As the patriarch of his family, Okonkwo is used to obedience and homage. He is orthodox in his outlook, unyielding in his support for patriarchal agency, and ambitious in his quest for self-aggrandizement. Additionally, he has Ibuza tradition on his side. When Iloba, Okonkwo's eldest son, complains about Aku-nna's schooling (Aku-nna is Ma Blackie's daughter from her first marriage to Ezekiel), Okonkwo tells him to see beyond his own narrow interests.
Accordingly, both Aku-nna and Ogugua (Aku-nna's girl cousin) will command hefty bride prices when they marry. Okonkwo thinks to appropriate the bride prices for himself in order to become an Obi and to receive the prestigious "Eze" title. Since an expensive and lavish celebration is expected of a man who aspires to be an Obi, Okonkwo looks at both his daughter and step-daughter as commodities to be exchanged for monetary reward.
Okonkwo isn't unduly concerned about the girls' happiness; his personal ambition and desire for supremacy drives all his actions. This is why he isn't especially concerned about Aku-nna receiving an education; the more educated a girl is, the higher the bride price she can command. As long as she does not shame him by going to college, Okonkwo will permit her some autonomy.
Okonkwo's character and actions contribute to the plot by being the antagonist to Aku-nna's character. The explosive conflict between step-father and step-daughter largely decides the course of the novel. Concerned about his place and image in society, Okonkwo demands that Aku-nna break off her friendship with Chike, her handsome teacher.
For her part, Aku-nna is already in love with Chike, and she rebels furiously; when she is kidnapped by Okoboshi, an arrogant young man who presumes to "save" Aku-nna from the attentions of Chike, Aku-nna becomes even more resolute in her rebellion. She elopes with Chike and decides to make a new life with her beloved. Meanwhile, Okonkwo refuses to accept a bride price for Aku-nna from Mr. Ofulue, Chike's father. Despite Mr. Ofulue's offer of fifty pounds (double the amount that Ibuza custom originally demands), Okonkwo remains stubborn.
To Okonkwo, his masculine pride has been marred by Aku-nna's rebellion, and he means to make both Ma Blackie and Aku-nna pay for their insolence. He resorts to the Ibuza tradition of making a voodoo-type doll resembling Aku-nna, a doll he can symbolically stab with pins and burn to death. He also divorces Ma Blackie as a means of shaming her for cherishing such a rebellious daughter. Okonkwo's refusal of a bride price for Aku-nna is also intended to be a curse of sorts. In Ibuza tradition, it is said that any woman whose bride price is not paid will die in childbirth. Sadly, this is exactly what happens to Aku-nna. She dies in childbirth after birthing a beautiful daughter named Joy.
As for Chike, the irony of his situation stems from his position as the supposed descendant of slaves. Although he is an "Oshu" (slave) and an outcast, Chike's forebears were the first Nigerians the English missionaries accepted into their schools. As a consequence, the Oshu became the first teachers, headmasters, doctors, and lawyers of many Ibo towns. Many of them became very prosperous; yet, they were equally rejected and despised by the typical Ibo citizen. Despite his wealth and education, Chike is rejected from consideration as Aku-nna's suitor.
Ironically, Chike's wealth would have sustained Okonkwo's ambitions; yet, because of tradition and societal ecpectations, Okonkwo finds himself rejecting Chike's suit, an irony indeed.