Consider two forces, one having a magnitude of 20 N. The other having a magnitude of 12 N. What is the possible net force for these two forces? Maxim?

Forces are vectors, which means they have a magnitude (in other words, a "strength") and a direction. We usually represent them as arrows to indicate their direction, and sometimes the arrows are sized in proportion to their strength. 
An important thing to take into consideration is that forces are additive. That means that if you add two force vectors together, it is the same as having a single force vector that blends the two together. For example, if you had a force of 10N pointing straight up, and a force of 10N pointing straight down, they would cancel each other out. You would have an overall force vector of 0. 
On the other hand, if one of those vectors was pointing 90 degrees relative to the other, you would get a force whose strength was equal to the hypotenuse of a 45-degree right triangle, with a direction of 45 degrees.
You can think about this in terms of whether it makes practical sense, as well. For example, you know that two people carrying a table will make the job feel easier, even if one is much stronger than the other. If only the largest vector mattered, then the weaker person's help would not be felt at all. You also know that if you counteracted the strong person's force, perhaps by pushing down on the table, that would make the job harder.
From your example, it sounds like the strength of these force vectors is fixed, but they can change direction. This means that the greatest total force would result from both force vectors going in the same direction. In this case, we would just add the vectors together and get 20 + 12 = 32N. 
The lowest force we could get is if the vectors were pointing in opposite directions; this would result in 20 - 12 = 8N. 
Any combination other than these two would result in a force vector with a diagonal angle and a strength somewhere between 8N and 32N. 
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vector-Addition

Do you think capitalist governments should intervene in social reform or should we let the market conditions correct social problems?

If history is our guide, capitalism can not on its own always correct social problems. During the Gilded Age, capitalism was at its height, and it was largely unregulated and "laissez-faire" in nature. As a result, consumers and the society as a whole were at risk. 
For example, the Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed under Teddy Roosevelt's administration to protect the public from patent medicines that had no real value (or that were sometimes harmful) and from tainted food. The issue of tainted food became particularly apparent during what's generally referred to as the U.S. Army Beef Scandal, when, during the Spanish-American War, the Secretary of War (Russell A. Alger) bought tainted meat from the big-three meatpacking companies (Swift, Armour, and Morris) that caused soldiers in the U.S. Army to become sick and even die. This scandal, which weakened soldiers already combating malaria and other conditions, shed light on the need for greater government protection of consumers. Leaving consumers to regulate their own consumption of meat and allowing producers to regulate their own products was not working.
The problem with unregulated capitalism is that it does not always protect the weakest or most vulnerable members of society. In addition, a perfect capitalist system also relies on consumers having complete information about a product or service; however, as in the case of the U.S. Army Beef Scandal or the use of patent medicines that were harmful at worst and useless at best, it is impossible for consumers to have complete knowledge of some products. For example, consumers can't always know if meat is tainted or medicine has been proven useless or harmful. Therefore, the government has a role in safeguarding consumers and regulating the market so that producers cannot market harmful products and must meet some standards of honesty and effectiveness for their products and services.
In addition, correcting social problems does not always have a market incentive. For example, providing affordable housing does not in itself guarantee profits, or at least not the same kinds of profits that could be made by developers building luxury housing. Therefore, the government must intervene in the market to provide solutions that meet social needs, particularly those of the most vulnerable members of society. The Gilded Age also showed that when housing is unregulated, many people without means will live in unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions. Therefore, the government must intervene in these types of situations.

List three properties of water and how each is useful to many species on earth.

Water is a unique substance without which life on Earth would be nothing like it is, if life could exist at all.
One important property of water is that it is a polar molecule. This allows water to dissolve polar and ionic substances. Cells of living things contain water as the solvent. The amino acids and sugars we use for food and for synthesis of biomolecules are dissolved in water in our cells, as are ATP, NADH, and the ions that transmit nerve signals. Because it is polar, water does not dissolve nonpolar substances like hydrocarbons, allowing for the existence of the lipid bilayer that makes up cell membranes, containing cells and keeping the contents in, while keeping out substances that are potentially harmful to the cell.
A second important property is that liquid water has a very high specific heat capacity. Compared to other substances, water can take in a great deal of energy with a relatively small rise in temperature, and it can release a large amount of energy with a relatively small decrease in temperature. This means when water is present, temperatures fluctuate much less than in dry areas, and the temperatures of bodies of water change slowly. Thus organisms that live in and around water are protected from temperature extremes. Since you only asked for three properties, I will include the other thermodynamic properties of water here. Water requires a large amount of energy to melt, and vaporizing it requires an even greater amount. The large amount of energy taken up or given off in these phase changes further helps stabilize temperatures around the Earth, and also allows living things to regulate their body temperature using evaporation of water.
Of course another property is also important: water is a liquid at the range of temperatures most suited for life. It could not function as solvent in living things if it was not. No other substance on Earth exists in all three phases—solid, liquid, and gas—within the temperature range experienced by living things. I’ll throw in a bonus property relevant to phase changes. Because of the capability of its molecules to form “hydrogen bonds,” solid water forms a particular, open structure that is less dense than liquid water. In other words, water expands when it freezes, whereas most substances do not: they are more dense in their solid phase. This means that ice floats on top of water. This property makes aquatic life possible in many places. If ice sank to the bottom of a body of water, organisms would not be able to dig into the sediment at the bottom of bodies of water in the winter when food is scarce. Insulated by the water above it, in many bodies of water the ice would never melt, preventing plants from taking root, fish from having a place to lay their eggs, and many of the other things that are essential to aquatic ecosystems.
There is a great deal more that can be said about water’s unique suitability to support life, but here are three important properties with one extra. We living things are truly fortunate that water is exactly what it is!

College Algebra, Chapter 1, 1.2, Section 1.2, Problem 54

Suppose that Jan and Levi can mow the lawn in $40$ min if they work together. If Levi works twice as fast as Jan, how long does it take Jan to mow the lawn alone?

If we let $x$ be the amount of time it takes Jan to do the job, the amount of time it takes Levi to the same job is $\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}$ so..


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}} =& \frac{1}{40}
&& \text{Model}
\\
\\
\frac{1}{x} + \frac{2}{x} =& \frac{1}{40}
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
\\
\frac{1 + 2}{x} =& \frac{1}{40}
&& \text{Simplify by cross multiplication}
\\
\\
120 =& x
&&

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Thus, it takes $120$ min for Jan to mow the lawn alone.

Describe the setting of "The Signal-Man" and the atmosphere that is created by it.

Dickens's "The Signal-Man" takes place in a remote train signal box. The box is surrounded by a dripping wall of jutting stones that blocks out the sunshine and sky almost entirely. In one direction, the wall continues, and in the other, it leads to a tunnel whose architecture is notable for its gloominess. One must descend to the box along a steep, zigzaggy path. Inside the box is a fire, a book for recording entries, and a telegraphic instrument.
The atmosphere the setting of the story creates is one of gloominess and isolation. When the specter of danger arrives at this lonely outpost, the signal-man is alarmed. However, as the specter gives him no idea of what danger is coming, he cannot warn people. Therefore, he lives in anxious isolation, knowing that the specter means impending doom but not knowing what shape the doom will take. The signal-man's lack of connection with the outside world enhances his alarm and his sense of futility in the face of danger.

The setting of "The Signal-Man" is a dark and isolated site haunted by a sinister presence, representing industrialization.
In the exposition of this ghost story, there is an atmosphere of isolation, gloom, and anonymity. After the narrator calls to the signal-man to point out a path of descent from the steep cutting overhead upon which he stands, he descends to "a solitary and dismal . . . place . . . . On either side, a dripping-wet wall of jagged stone, excluding all view but a strip of sky."
To the narrator the train tunnel seems like a "great dungeon." The perspective on one end is that of a "crooked prolongation of this great dungeon." On the other, the gloom ends with a shadowy "red light" and a dismal entrance to a black tunnel, the construction of which seems "barbarous, depressing, and forbidding." Because so little sun strikes this area, an earthy, deadly smell emanates from the earth and stone.
This is a lonesome place and there is a sense of existential isolation. In addition, there is an eerie atmosphere and air of mystery created by the odd behavior of the signal-man who possesses a watchfulness suggestive of a person who has seen a specter or other form belonging to another world.  

"The Signal-Man" takes place in a signal box somewhere in England. From the narrator's observations, the reader learns that the signal box is accessed via a "rough zigzag" path which passes through a cutting (an open passage for a railway). This cutting is very damp and dark and rarely receives any sunlight, as the narrator comments: 

So little sunlight ever found its way to this spot, that it had an earthy, deadly smell.

Beyond the cutting, the box itself is an office which contains the basic items needed to carry out this occupation, including a desk and a fire. The box is noted for being small and dark. 
By describing the setting in this manner, Dickens creates a gloomy and oppressive atmosphere. Moreover, by employing certain words and phrases, like "I had left the natural world," Dickens suggests that the signal box is its own world, distinct from the world above in which people, like the narrator, exist. By creating this other world, Dickens adds to the supernatural element of the story while also heightening the reader's sense of fear.

Please provide a summary of Amitav Ghosh's "Dancing in Cambodia."

This essay recounts the 1906 journey of King Sisowath of Cambodia, one hundred classical dancers and musicians, and his daughter, Princess Soumphady, to France. The author meets a woman named Chea Samy, who knew the princess and was later Pol Pot's sister-in-law. Pol Pot was the leader of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, and the author tells the story of how Chea Samy was forced to leave the city of Phnom Penh during the time the Khmer Rouge were in power and work on a rice farm. She only realized later that her brother-in-law, Pol Pot, had taken over the country in a brutal totalitarian regime. After the famine and hardship of the Khmer Rouge era, Chea Samy and her husband found their way back to the city, where she tried to gather together the disbanded classical dancers who she used to know. In 1981, these classical dancers performed for the first time since the Khmer Rouge had come to power.
The author then connects King Sisowath's journey to France, where he became enamored of French culture, with Pol Pot's later journey to France in the late 1940s and early 1950s. When King Sisowath traveled to France in 1906, he went with his Palace Minister, Thiounn (pronounced Chunn), who earned great renown in France in part because he spoke French. Thiounn's son went on to attend university in France, as did Thiounn's grandson, Thiounn Mumm, who became a mentor to Pol Pot, then known as Saloth Sar. It was likely Thiounn Mumm who introduced Pol Pot to the French communist party in the 1950s.
The author makes the connection between King Sisowath's love of French culture and Pol Pot's adoption of communism in France. Both men came to love the culture of the colonizer, and they both brought back European-influenced ideologies to Cambodia that would have disastrous effects. The king established a French-style lycée that went on to educate men who joined the Khmer Rouge, and Pol Pot adopted a communist ideology that would bring brutality to Cambodia. Both men were examples of what the author calls "the power of Cambodia's involvement in the culture and politics of modernism, in all its promise and horror."

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 7, 7.1, Section 7.1, Problem 33

You need to use the substitution sin x = t, such that:
sin x = t => cos x dx = dt
Replacing the variable, yields:
int cos x*ln(sin x) dx = int ln t dt
You need to use the integration by parts such that:
int udv = uv - int vdu
u = ln t => du = (dt)/t
dv = 1 => v = t
int ln t dt = t*ln t - int t*(dt)/t
int ln t dt = t*ln t - int dt
int ln t dt = t*ln t - t + C
Replacing back the variable, yields:
int cos x*ln(sin x) dx = sin x*ln (sin x) -sin x+ C
Hence, evaluating the integral, using substitution, then integration by parts, yields int cos x*ln(sin x) dx = sin x*(ln (sin x) -1)+ C.

Explain what Ferdinand De Saussure means when he says that language is a system.

Saussure's thought can be incredibly complex, so I will try to keep things as simple as possible. Throughout his work, Saussure makes the distinction between what he calls—in French—langue and parole. For Saussure, parole refers to our use of language, such as when we have conversations, for example. However, that is not what mainly interests him; his main focus is on langue. This is what Saussure means by language, not how it is used but, rather, its underlying system. He defines it as follows:

[A] linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas.

A linguistic system is a system of signs. It is only in signs that meaning can be found. Saussure splits signs into two: the signifier (the sound or visual form of the word) and the signified (the actual concept or meaning of the word). The connection between signifier and signified, between the sound and the meaning, is entirely arbitrary for Saussure.
Let us illustrate the point with an example. The terms "four candles" and "fork handles" share the same signifier, namely, the same sound. Yet their meaning—what is signified—is completely different. Why we attach an identical signifier to two completely different meanings is purely a matter of convention, something that develops over time.
For Saussure, then, meaning comes from within the language system; it does not derive its meaning from any kind of connection with the outside world, the world "out there." The inherently arbitrary nature of the language system prevents this. Such meaning that we do have arises purely from differences within a closed system of signs. As the system is closed and unrelated to the social world, its underlying structure never changes. The way in which language is used, parole, certainly does change, of course, but the system itself, langue, does not.

What can cause an increase in equilibrium price and an increase in equilibrium supply?

I’m going to assume you meant to say “equilibrium quantity” because supply is a curve that dictates equilibrium. The changes in supply and demand will disrupt and shift equilibrium price and quantity, but there is no “equilibrium supply” to increase.
When supply goes down, the equilibrium will change. Price will go up because of scarcity of a good. However, quantity will go down, because with less available, there is a lower quantity purchased. Conversely, if supply increases, price will decrease, but supply will increase.
If demand decreases, the price and quantity will both decrease. If both price and quantity are to increase, there would need to be an increase in demand. This can be driven by better marketing, a change in the market itself, a change in the technology used, or something else—it is a very dynamic construct. However, the underlying economic notion is simple: if you want quantity and price to increase, demand must increase.

It seems to me that there must be some mistake in this question.  The reason for this is that there is no such thing as “equilibrium supply.”  Supply is a curve, as is demand.  At the point where the supply and demand curves intersect, we have equilibrium.  At that point, there is an equilibrium price and an equilibrium quantity that is both supplied and demanded.  However, there is no equilibrium supply.  So, I believe that this question must actually be concerning what could cause both the equilibrium price and the equilibrium quantity to rise.  In that case, the answer would be that only an increase in demand can cause such a combination of effects.
When supply rises, the equilibrium quantity rises, but the equilibrium price drops.  When supply declines, the equilibrium price rises, but the equilibrium quantity drops.  When demand declines, both equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity drop as well.  However, when demand rises, equilibrium quantity goes up (because people are willing and able to buy more things) and equilibrium prices rise (because it costs more to make more things and because people who demand more are willing to pay more). 
In order to have both price and quantity rise, we need to have an increase in demand.
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=change+in+demand

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=market+equilibrium

How does Conan Doyle use language techniques to portray Sherlock Holmes as eccentric in the first 311 words of Chapter 1 of The Sign Of Four?

well

In this passage, we are presented with a description of Sherlock Holmes injecting himself with a syringe. Watson, who is disapproving, asks the detective which drug he is using -- morphine or cocaine? Holmes answers that it is a seven percent solution of cocaine.
This is probably the most famous account of drug use in all of the Sherlock Holmes stories. It establishes that Holmes has what Watson would characterize as a drug problem. But does the account show Holmes to be an eccentric?
If we consider only the description of drug use, we might argue that Holmes isn't being portrayed as particularly eccentric. In 1890, when the novel was published, cocaine and morphine were in wide use. The drugs were prescribed by doctors for a number of ailments, and used by many conventional, middle class people. Moreover, even if Holmes's drug use is excessive, that doesn't make him eccentric. Addiction and drug abuse weren't uncommon.
What's more telling is the language Conan Doyle uses to describe Holmes' manner and Watson's sense of intimidation. Watson says he has seen Holmes inject himself three times a day for months, and he has disapproved.  But he never spoke up because "…the cool, nonchalant air of my companion which made him the last man with whom one would care to take anything approaching to a liberty."
Watson says he rebuked himself nightly for lacking the courage to protest, and when he finally does speak up, it's a very weak protest indeed. He merely asks which drug Holmes is using, and then refuses Holmes's offer to take some cocaine himself -- with an explanation that seems designed to avoid further confrontation:
"No, indeed," I answered, brusquely. "My constitution has not got over the Afghan campaign yet. I cannot afford to throw any extra strain upon it."
Is Holmes aware of the effect he has on his friend? That seems evident, and not just from his prior reputation as an excellent reader of human emotional reactions. The language in this passage suggests that Watson's emotions were clearly on display. Watson says "from day to day I had become more irritable at the sight" of Holmes engaged in drug use. He speaks of his "…additional exasperation produced by the extreme deliberation of [Holmes's] manner."
In this context, the true nature of Holmes's eccentricity is revealed. He is surely aware of Watson's feelings, yet he openly, and with "extreme deliberation," uses drugs in front of him. He senses the disapproval in Watson's question, but offers no acknowledgement of it. Instead, he asks casually if Watson "would care to try" the seven percent solution himself.
Thus, it isn't so much Holmes's drug use that makes him appear eccentric, but the show of indifference he makes to his friend's discomfort, and the qualities that inspire Watson to back down.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/victorian-literature-and-culture/article/morphine-addicted-doctors-the-english-opium-eater-and-embattled-medical-authority/7D7A5C8EEAF9A19567772405EE719892

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819571/

In A People's History of the United States, how did Howard Zinn describe why he wrote his book?

Howard Zinn's popular text A People's History of the United States, attempts to be what the title claims it as--a people's history.  Released in 1980, it was meant to include women and minorities in American history since they were often left out of mainstream works, especially for undergraduates.  Zinn gathered material for the book over a twenty-year teaching career and he wanted something that was not only relevant to the young men and women in his class, but something that would get mainstream historians' attention.  Zinn's work has been considered controversial especially given his liberal politics, but the book remains popular in that its a history of America which serves all.  Just like Zinn's undergraduate classes, it does not pretend to be neutral.  Zinn's work popularized using race and gender issues to study American history and today many textbooks at the high school and university level have more material about these issues.  
https://www.guernicamag.com/a_peoples_history_of_howard_zi/

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 7, 7.3-2, Section 7.3-2, Problem 44

Differentiate $\displaystyle y = \frac{e^u - e^{-u}}{e^u + e^{-u}}$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

y' =& \frac{\displaystyle e^u - \frac{1}{e^u}}{\displaystyle e^u + \frac{1}{e^u}}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2u} - 1}{\cancel{e^u}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2u} + 1}{\cancel{e^u}}}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{e^{2u} - 1}{e^{2u} + 1}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{d}{du} \left( \frac{e^{2u} - 1}{e^{2u} + 1} \right)
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{\displaystyle (e^{2u} + 1) \frac{d}{du} (e^{2u} - 1) (e^{2u} - 1) \frac{d}{du} (e^{2u} + 1) }{(e^{2u} + 1)^2}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{\displaystyle (e^{2u} + 1) (e^{2u}) \frac{d}{du} (2u) - (e^{2u} - 1) (e^{2u}) \frac{d}{du} (2u) }{(e^{2u} + 1)^2 }
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{(e^{2u} + 1) (2e^{2u}) - (e^{2u} - 1) (2e^{2u}) }{(e^{2u} + 1)^2 }
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{2e^{2u} [(e^{2u} + 1) - (e^{2u} - 1)] }{(e^{2u} + 1)^2}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{2e^{2u} (\cancel{e^{2u}} + 1 - \cancel{e^{2u}} + 1) }{(e^{2u} + 1)^2}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{2e^{2u} (2)}{(e^{2u + 1})^2}
\\
\\
y' =& \frac{4e^{2u}}{(e^{2u} + 1)^2}





\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What do the children of “Want” and “Ignorance” metaphorically mean?

Dickens is pretty straightforward with Ignorance and Want from the moment they appear beneath the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Present. In short, Want represents the people of the world who need things. Ignorance represents the people like Scrooge who not only refuse to help those who need things, but turn a blind eye and pretend that they don't see the issue at all, even when it is right in front of them.
The spirit warns Scrooge about both of the children, but says "most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” One of the reasons that the boy is so dangerous is because he represents the manifestation of Scrooge's own words.
In stave 1, Scrooge himself conveys the exact type of ignorance that the boy represents. When two men enter asking for financial assistance for charity, Scrooge inquires about the social institutions set up to "help" the poor, such as the treadmill, the Poor Law, prisons, and workhouses. The men state that most people would rather die than use these programs or places. Scrooge responds, "[if] they would rather die . . . they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." As harsh as this is, he follows with something even more harsh, as he goes on to say, "[besides]—excuse me—I don’t know that.” It's bad enough that he values life so little; it's even worse that he willfully ignores the issues when he could do so much to alleviate them.While all of the spirits find ways to make Scrooge reconcile his perspective, Ignorance and Want function to make Scrooge, in addition to Dickens's own London of the 1840s, face the social problems that he shares the burden of. Like some of Dickens's contemporaries, Scrooge shows the exact type of Ignorance that the boy represents, and in doing so contributes to the severe case of Want.

What conflict at the Constitutional Convention did the Great Compromise resolve?

When the Founding Fathers met to discuss a new plan of government, there was a significant difference of opinion regarding how representation in Congress would be determined. The large states believed that they should have more representatives than the small states because they had more people living in their state. The small states wanted equal representation in Congress because they feared the large states would have too many representatives. They feared this would make it more difficult for the small states to get Congress to pass laws that would help them get the things that were important to them. They also were concerned that their voices might not be heard.
Roger Sherman proposed the Great Compromise. There would be two houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, the population of a state would determine representation. This would allow the large states to have more representatives than the small states. In the Senate, representation would be equal. Each state, regardless of size, would have two senators.
This compromise allowed both sides to get part of what they wanted. The Great Compromise resolved the issue of how representation in Congress would be determined.
https://connecticuthistory.org/the-connecticut-compromise/

What changed after the October revolution?

Strictly speaking, the events of October 1917 constituted an insurrection rather than a revolution. Since February, Russia had been ruled by a dual power arrangement consisting of a predominantly liberal Provisional Government, and the Soviets, revolutionary councils representing groups such as workers, peasants and soldiers.
Most of those within the Russian political system were committed to the establishment of a Constituent Assembly, which was set to provide the country with its first ever democratically-elected government. However, the Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin, had other ideas. When the results of the Constituent Assembly elections came in, the Bolsheviks found that they had finished in second place behind the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs).
Initially, the Bolsheviks had supported the Constituent Assembly, but their position changed over the course of 1917. They became increasingly radical, calling for all power to be given to the Soviets, where they had majority support. If this were to happen, then the Constituent Assembly, and the "bourgeois democracy" it represented, would effectively be superfluous. After the Assembly convened, it lasted for all of thirteen hours before it was formally dissolved at gunpoint by troops loyal to the Bolsheviks.
In the aftermath of the forced dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, power was formally transferred to the All-Russia Congress of Soviets. In fact, however, power gradually became concentrated in the hands of the Council of People's Commissars, or Sovnarkom, headed by Lenin, and consisting of a coalition of Bolsheviks and Left SRs. Over time, Sovnarkom became the most powerful organ of executive power in Russia. Gradually, the Left SRs were eased out of government as the Bolsheviks turned Russia into a one-party state.
After the October insurrection, the Russian system of government became more repressive, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin unleashed a campaign of terror against anyone perceived to be a threat to the regime. The extensive program of civil rights enacted after the February Revolution was systematically dismantled as the Bolsheviks consolidated their dictatorship. The growing centralization of power, combined with heightened repression, set the tone for Russia's subsequent political, social and economic development until the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 5, 5.2, Section 5.2, Problem 29

Determine if the polynomial $-6p^4q - 3p^3q^2 +2pq^3 -q^4$ is a monomial, binomial, trinomial or none of these. Also,
find the degree

$-6p^4q - 3p^3q^2 +2pq^3 -q^4$ is a polynomial with more than three terms. Thus, the answer is none of the choices.

The degree is the sum of the exponents of each variable in the expression.

In this case, the degree of $-6p^4q$ is 5 and the degree of $2pq^3$ is 4

Thus, the degree of $-6p^4q - 3p^3q^2 +2pq^3 -q^4$ is the largest degree of its terms. Thus, the answer the degree is $5$

Explain specifically what the play says about the nature of male-female relationships. Feminism comes in many varieties. What is the precise nature of the feminist statement the play makes?

In her play Trifles, Susan Glaspell presents a tale of female oppression through the voices of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. These women accompany their husbands to an investigation of the death of Mr. Wright; and as they work to tidy up the Wrights' home, they discover evidence that would lead to the conviction of the wife, Minnie Wright: they find the broken body of a canary in Mrs. Wright's sewing box and a broken birdcage. This leads them to understand that Mrs. Wright lived a hard life, one devoid of beauty and song, because her husband forced her into an existence that centered on him. She was to keep the house clean, prepare meals, and provide any other services he might require of her.
As a young unmarried woman, Minnie Wright wore pretty clothes and sang in the church choir—as symbolized by the canary she had. When Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters look through her possessions, they discover drab clothing and the corpse of her beloved bird. In his efforts to control his wife, Mr. Wright took away any beauty she had in her life, forcing her to wear dreary clothing and to abandon her singing. When they find the canary's corpse, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters understand Mr. Wright killed the bird and that this act caused Mrs. Wright to snap. She killed him out of anger and frustration.
This play was written in 1916, a time when women were to be subservient to the men in their lives. Any hobbies they had were considered to be trivial, or "trifling." As Mr. Hale and Mr. Peters demonstrate in their response to their wives' roles in the investigation, these men considered anything that the women might be doing to be relatively insignificant. Through her creation of these strong women, especially Mrs. Hale, Glaspell demonstrates that the women were being unfairly treated and undervalued by the men in their lives.

1/3+1/5+1/7+1/9+1/11+... Confirm that the Integral Test can be applied to the series. Then use the Integral Test to determine the convergence or divergence of the series.

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

What signals warn the man that it is much colder than anticipated?

The man in this story is a newcomer to the land described. As such, he does not necessarily recognize all the signs he could possibly have interpreted to give warning as to the cold. The fact that he cannot see the sun does not concern him, because it has been several days since he has seen it.
He does, however, attempt to summon some spittle in his mouth and spit it out "as an experiment." He is surprised to find that, on each of the several times he tries this, his spittle freezes before it reaches the ground. This is significant because it indicates to him that the temperature is less than fifty degrees below zero (although he cannot tell exactly how much lower it is).
The man also notices an unexpected numbness in his face and extremities. He knows that this is the sign of extreme cold.

Is there character development in Pride and Prejudice?

Yes, there absolutely is character development in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice; in fact, the development of the two protagonists--Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy-- is arguably the driving force behind the novel's narrative and its ultimately happy ending!
When we first meet Elizabeth, she is an intelligent, witty, and keenly observant young woman who (although in possession of a sense of humor) is also afflicted by a sense of cynicism about the world around her. This attitude and her sense of superiority largely stems from her misgivings about the capabilities and intellectual capacity of others. She fully admits that she has a great deal of pride, which is a quality that she recognizes in Darcy upon meeting him: "I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine." Her first impressions of Darcy and her quickness to react to him are also indicative that she is prejudiced against him. This is the trouble with Elizabeth: she is fast to judge and eager to collect evidence that her own beliefs are "right," even as the conflicts that she conjures are often self-perpetuated because of her stubborn disposition. By the end of the novel, Elizabeth allows these negative tendencies to loosen their hold of her. She grows and transforms as she opens her mind to the fact that she is not always right and to the realization that she may have wrongly evaluated Darcy, his character, his intentions, and his actions. 
We see a similar sense of development within Darcy, who begins the novel as a cold, aloof, hypercritical man who highly values his own social and economic status and views those in lesser social positions as beneath him. Darcy puts forth a frigid and uninformed assessment of Elizabeth's family and of her sister Jane's interest in Bingley. It is this self-aggrandizing mindset that triggers the initial hostility between Darcy and Elizabeth; he honors truth over sensitivity, outdated ideals over reality. In order for Darcy to grow, he must resolve his judgments of her and her family and become self-actualized as a feeling--not just thinking--man. This heroic transformation occurs when he takes direct action to save Lydia's reputation from the loathsome Wickham. 
By the story's end, both characters have relinquished their ignorance and the absurdity of their judgments in order to come to a similar conclusion: "vanity, not love, has been my folly." 
 
http://www.mssresearch.org/?q=Psychological_Growth_in_Pride_and_Prejudice

What are the literary devices used in "If I could stop one heart from breaking" by Emily Dickinson?

This short poem by Emily Dickinson comprises seven lines and has an ABABCBB rhyme scheme. The meter of the poem is also irregular, with the first line having a pattern of stresses equivalent to iambic tetrameter, while the next line has only three stressed syllables. The third line also has four beats, but we then see a return to shorter lines with only three key stresses.
In the first line of the poem, Dickens uses the idiomatic metaphor of a broken heart. This is a phrase very commonly used in English, but it is nevertheless an example of figurative language: the speaker cannot stop a heart from being literally damaged but may succeed in preventing the heart from being metaphorically broken by grief. The speaker is very dedicated to her task of keeping these hearts figuratively intact: her statement that she "shall not live in vain" seems almost a vow, as she uses the imperative "shall" rather than the softer "will." This seems a careful choice of formal diction, lending gravitas to the vow.
The speaker does not specify whose "aching" or "pain" she is most dedicated to preventing. On the contrary, her desire to "ease" is universal; if "one pain" is cooled, she will have made a valuable contribution in life. The image of the "fainting robin" being restored "unto his nest" is another metaphor: the robin is not meant literally, but serves to represent even the smallest or most seemingly insignificant person who may need assistance, which the speaker is happy to provide.
Parallelism in the structure of the poem serves to emphasize the fact that only one "aching" or "pain" or "fainting robin" needs to be helped in order for the speaker to feel useful. Repetition of the statement, "I shall not live in vain," provides a sort of envelope for the center of the poem, encapsulating the details of the speaker's vow. The speaker dedicates herself to figuratively "cool[ing]" whatever pain she finds in the world.

We are introduced to two of David's friends at school: Tommy Traddles and Steerforth. Which of the two do you like most? Give reasons for your answer.

This is an entirely subjective answer, of course, but I would say that Tommy Traddles is easily the more likable of the two. Although he comes across as a bit of a clumsy clodhopper, Tommy has a good heart, and that's the most important thing of all. He's a very kind young boy who lives by a good code of values. He believes that the boys of Salem House must always stick together, come what may. Tommy may receive the most punishment of any of the boys, but this doesn't make him bitter. In fact, it's a notable characteristic of his that he has a strong sense of decency and honor which he manages to maintain, even in the face of adversity.
As for Steerforth, well there's no polite way to say this, but he's a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Although he wants the whole world to think of him as an angel, he's anything but. His wealthy, privileged upbringing gives him a sense of entitlement, leading him to treat other people like dirt. Like Traddles, Steerforth makes friends with David at Salem House, but unlike Tommy, Steerforth simply uses David to gain status. Despite David's many acts of kindness toward him, it's instructive that Steerforth gives David a cramped, tiny room above a stable when he comes to visit Steerforth in London. It's impossible to be a friend with someone who's a user, someone who wants to take advantage of you for their own selfish reasons. So when it comes to friendship, Steerforth isn't fit to lace Tommy Traddles's boots.

To what extent is Romeo's tragic flaw responsible for his downfall and sudden death? Please provide a quote from when Romeo kills Paris, as well as one from when he hugs Tybalt, and another about how Friar Lawrence is responsible for Romeo's death.

Romeo's tragic flaw of impetuousness is responsible for his downfall because his rash behavior leads him to make poor judgments, decisions that bring about his death.
When he first sees Juliet, Romeo exercises no caution; instead, in the Capulet home, he boldly approaches Juliet, asking her for a kiss: "My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand / To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss" (1.5.91-92 ). His actions incense Tybalt, Juliet's cousin.
Having won Juliet's heart under her balcony, Romeo rushes to Friar Lawrence to ask the priest to perform the marriage ceremony for them. Amazed at Romeo's change from being lovesick over Rosaline to being rashly passionate about his enemies' child, Juliet, Friar Lawrence is reluctant to marry them, but he does not want them to live in sin. He tells the young lovers, "...you shall not stay alone / Till Holy Church incorporate two in one" (2.6.36-37). After they are married, the impulsive Romeo quickly changes his feelings toward Tybalt, since Tybalt is part of the Capulet family to which Romeo now belongs. This new relationship is the reason that Romeo impulsively professes his love for Tybalt amid a heated situation. For, in his effort to diffuse the conflict between Mercutio and Tybalt in the public place in Verona, Romeo tells Tybalt

...the reason that I have to love thee/Doth much excuse the appertaining rage [the anger with which he otherwise would have responded]/ to such a greeting. (3.1.34-35)

The enraged Tybalt, who knows nothing of the marriage, argues that what Romeo says does not excuse the injuries that Romeo has committed against him. Still, Romeo tries to convince Tybalt that he "doth love better than thou canst devise"(3.1.40). Unfortunately, Romeo's rash efforts to intervene and diffuse the situation fail and his friend Mercutio is slain by the angered Tybalt.
Ironically, also, it is the priest's rash judgment that leads to Juliet's suicide because Friar Lawrence runs out of the catacombs without forcing Juliet to accompany him when she insists upon staying. Indirectly, too, he has some responsibility for Romeo's death since Romeo would not have killed himself if Juliet were not seemingly dead from the potion given to her by the priest that causes Balthasar to report her death. In addition, Friar Lawrence should have made more efforts to ensure that Romeo would know about Juliet's having taken his potion to feign her death.
Without knowing that Juliet is really alive, because he has believed Balthasar's report that Juliet's "...body sleeps in Capels' monument [tomb] / And her immortal part with angels lives..." (5.1.19), Romeo then buys poison and rushes to the Capulets' tomb. It is there that Romeo, unfortunately, encounters Paris who says that he will "apprehend [Romeo] as a felon" (5.1.69). They fight and Romeo slays Paris.

Who is Caryl?

Traditionally, writers of epic poems would invoke the Muses, ancient goddesses who protected the arts. Pope, however, invokes the name of his friend John Caryll, ('Caryl' in the poem) who encouraged him to write The Rape of the Lock. Caryll's relative Robert, Lord Petre, caused something of a scandal when he stole a lock of Miss Arabella Fermor's hair. Caryll saw the funny side of the story and thought it would be an excellent idea for Pope to use his remarkable literary talents to write a humorous poem on the incident. The families concerned were at loggerheads over the issue; they obviously regarded it as a matter of honor. Caryll wanted them to see how ridiculous they were being and so enlisted Pope's assistance in making them realize the sheer pointlessness and triviality of the whole affair.

What is the metaphor of the poem "Blindness" by Charles Lamb?

In this poem, the speaker recalls a trip on a stagecoach. He explains how a young girl catches his attention. He wonders why she doesn't look outside and admire the scenery as a child typically would. She informs him that she is blind, and he finds this incredibly mournful. The girl's mother then explains how the girl simply lost her sight in the middle of the day.
Depending upon your interpretation, the last two lines could apply to the child, the mother, or both. The sun shines on the mother as she relates this tragic tale, but her eyes receive no light. This would be metaphoric, meaning that she is so sad that her eyes cannot take in light, warmth, or solace. In the other case, the meaning is literal and/ or metaphorical. The sun shines on the girl as she speaks but her eyes receive no light because she is blind and cannot see the light. Metaphorically speaking, like the mother, the young girl gets no light, comfort, or warmth from the outside world. She might get comfort from her mother's words, embraces, and so on, but she gets nothing visually.
In this poem, "light" is the key metaphor. Light typically symbolizes ideas like goodness, warmth, truth, and love. Therefore, the girl's blindness represents a lack of light. In this case, she experiences a lack of warmth and comfort that visual experience might provide.

If we were to replicate Dr. Stanley Milgram's obedience study today, do you think the results would be different? Why or why not?

The Milgram Study came out before there were Institutional Review Boards, which are essentially the “ethics police” of academic research. The Milgram Study was actually one of the experiments that brought about a change in the need for researchers to submit to a higher board on whether or not their experiments were ethical or not. Fortunately today, this study would not be allowed as it stands. Several changes in the procedure would have to be completed in order for someone to re-create this study.
Back in the early 2000’s, a Californian University Professor did in fact re-create this study but made changes in order to pass the institutional review boards approval. For example, he changed the max voltage of shocks to be only 150 volts, as opposed to Milgram’s max of 450 volts! Not surprisingly, this replication study found very similar results to the original research. Most participants (70%) did go all the way up to the 150 volt max and had to be stopped at that point.
These experiments demonstrate the power of authority to be followed, whether it coincides with people’s personal morals and ideals. Unfortunately, those in power know this all too well and use it to their advantage. Hopefully as people continue to evolve, maybe in another 50 years, this study can be replicated with very different results.

The fact that you ask the question is interesting, especially considering the original logic behind conducting the experiments. After the world discovered what occurred in WWII Germany (i.e. the Holocaust), people were shocked that those charged with war crimes all stated they were "following orders." The basic assumption, at least initially, was that there was something unique about the German people that would lead them to blindly obey such orders. Milgram's study showed that this potential to obey authority so intently was, in fact, not a German trait. Instead it was something that most people are likely to do.
Thus, the notion that there was something unique about these participants in the original study (or the world) begs the question of whether or not there was something unique about these people that resulted in them obeying authority so blindly - all the way up to an "incapacitated" participant.
Luckily for us, other researchers have actually tested this notion (with a few modifications to the original experimental design). The tricky part of these studies was actually getting them approved. With the advent of Internal Review Boards (IRB) and the acknowledgement that some early medical and psychological research studies were at best mildly stressful and at worst deadly to unknowing/vulnerable participants - many thought a replication would never occur. These researchers (see links below) were able to make modifications to ensure no harm came to participants and found that the original phenomenon still largely occurs; even in our technology advanced, innovative world people will still obey the commands of an authority figure.
The reason behind these results are simple - context plays a large role in shaping behavior. In a situation where an authority figure is telling you to obey an order and informs you that you are not personally responsible for the outcome, you rationalize that you must obey the order, the authority figure knows what they are talking about more than you do, and you no longer have responsibility for what occurs. If something does occur...you were just doing your job.
The lesson learned here should be to recognize those environmental characteristics (as well as how strong they are) and fight the urge to fall into the trap should you find yourself in a similar situation. In fact, one modification to the these recent studies was to exclude psychology students. The idea was that these students would be so familiar with the original study that the effect of the environment and the pressure to obey would be almost non-existent (and not truly representative of the population).

Links:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.htm
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-milgram

Believe it or not, researchers have actually replicated the Milgram experiment pretty recently! In 2009, Jerry M. Burger was granted institutional review board approval to replicate the study, and in 2017, researchers from the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland also replicated it. When Psychological research presents a compelling idea, replication studies are essential to either validate or invalidate the results. Both projects reflect similar results to the original Milgram Obedience Study.
Stanley Milgram publicized his findings in 1963, over half a century ago. The results at the time were shocking to the American public. His study aimed to discover the extent of human obedience to authority (law enforcement, medical professionals, etc.). Today, Milgram's experiments are still considered controversial. Many participants were exposed to severe and unexpected psychological trauma when they were led to believe that they had caused serious harm to another person.

Milgram attributed the obedient behavior to two theories.
a). Theory of Conformism; when a person is dealing with something that they aren't familiar with and don't know what to do, they refer to their established group. The group provides the individual with a model of behavior to follow in unknown situations. As a result the individual conforms with the group for security and safety. An example of group conformity could be anything from shoe-wearing to sitting quietly in a library. Groups follow a hierarchy of roles. A lost individual can look to an expert on a matter of which they are unsure.
b) Agentic State Theory; When a person is obedient to someone else, they become the instrument of that person's will. My mom told me set the table for dinner. When I did, I became the instrument of her will rather than my own. When a person complies to another's will, they may no longer view themselves as the driving instrument of the action. This causes self-perceived displacement from personal responsibility to the action.
Sadly, replication studies still demonstrate a shockingly high rate of participant obedience, nearly 90%. Even after half a decade, human nature appears to remain unchanged. Contemporary replication studies still yield high rates of obedience despite unique and unexpected experimental conditions such as
Using a puppy in place of a human learner.
Using a computer avatar in place of a human learner and informing participants
Staging fake study participant refusal in front of actual study participants.
Even after such changes, the results still mirror Milgram's original data. Poor puppies!
However, these new replication studies have limitations. For example, the Polish study only utilizes 80 participants. Here, less than 100 people are used to represent a population of 38 million. And before Mr. Burger obtained his IRB approval to conduct further research, his preliminary results were used as content for a television show. The entertainment factor may have biased his findings.
A full blown, multicultural replication study with specialized sample selection (a way to ensure that participants are selected randomly) that spans over an extended period of time might yield findings that we don't expect. For example, participants, when given a second chance, may realize that they aren't strictly beholden to the will of a higher authority. Human beings are remarkable agents of change.
Sources
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Press.
Nissani, Moti (1990). "A Cognitive Reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram's Observations on Obedience to Authority". American Psychologist. 45: 1384– 1385. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1384


Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2017, March 15). Conducting the Milgram experiment in Poland, psychologists show people still obey [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.spsp.org/news-center/press- releases/milgram-poland-obey

Results Of The Original Study
Milgram's 1965 study sought to determine the conditions under which a subject would obey or refuse to obey the commands of an authority figure such as a researcher conducting a scientific study, specifically, when the subject was being told to hurt another person. Milgram notes that while subjects may be "obeying" the researcher or "conforming", it can't be said that they are "cooperating" because that tends to imply that the subjects agree with the research being conducted, which they may not. Therefore, the terms "obey" and "disobey" relate purely to the subjects actions.
Subjects are told that the research is about learning, specifically to study the effect of punishment on memory. The study uses the subject as the "teacher" and an accomplice as the "learner". The learner has to answer questions but is punished by the teacher with an electric shock for an incorrect answer, although there is no actual electric shock being administered. The true object of the study is to see the amount of voltage the teacher is willing to use to shock the learner, when told to use an increasingly more painful amount of electricity by the researcher. The learner acts as though he is really in increasingly severe pain, begging for the experiment to be stopped. Any refusal by the subject to continue the experiment is met with increasingly stronger orders and arguments from the researcher.
It was found that if the learner, or "victim", did not protest in any way that the teacher was aware of, 66% of subjects would continue shocking the victim until they reached the maximum level of "450 volts" even though it was marked "Extreme Danger" and the victim pounded on the wall at 300 volts. If the subject could hear the pleading of the victim, then only 62.5% would continue until the end; if the victim was in the same room and could be seen and heard, only 40% would continue until the end; if the teacher had to physically force the hand of the victim onto a shock plate when they started refusing because of the pain, then only 30% would complete the experiment. It should also be said that all subjects reported being completely convinced of the authenticity of the accomplice's pain.
Repeating the Study Today
More than 53 years after the original study, Americans live in a society of increasing access to information. This by itself would clearly change many of the subjects' perceived relationship to the researcher in terms of knowledge- they may not recognize the researcher as having access to any more information than they have, and may see themselves as being just as knowledgeable. It would be less likely that subjects would obey a researcher just because the researcher claims to be a scientist- news stories regarding corrupt and immoral authority figures are today all too common. There have also been changes in the legal protections and options of individuals who are harmed by institutions or corporations in any way, which would make it harder to get subjects in the U.S. to believe the experiment could be real. The fact that this study has already been done means that subjects may already have knowledge of it, especially with internet access to almost everything. Anyone who has taken a few psychology or sociology classes has probably heard of this experiment- at the very least, these people would have to be filtered out in order to replicate the original study. Milgram also mentions that perhaps the culture at the time did not provide many role models for disobedience, whereas today such models are common- it is often considered preferable to be disobedient and to refuse to follow the "rules".
However, some of the findings of the original researchers still remain true to this day. Milgram found that the physical presence and proximity of the authority figure was strongly correlated with obedience to administer the shocks, which should continue to hold true today. Individuals who served in the military or other organizations where they were expected to follow orders without questioning them would likely be as compliant as they were in 1965, although this was not explicitly studied at the time. Milgram's personal subjective observations were that good people repeatedly bowed to the pressure to continue the experiment even with its' increasingly severe effects, and certainly many of the good people of today's America would still be just as vulnerable. Milgram concluded that even the influence of a free and democratic society cannot be counted on to create citizens that will refuse to commit brutal and inhumane treatment of others at the direction of a malicious authority figure. Has the influence of American society changed significantly from the 1960's? Although today's culture demands that we treat minorities and women with equality and fairness, do those standards apply to others who are just like us?
These facts and observations, taken as a whole, push the balance to favor different results if the experiment was conducted again today. In particular, the increased recognition by society of the rights of individuals, access to information, and greater rejection of malicious authority figures, would mean that participants would be less likely to complete the experiment.

The results would most likely be similar, if not yield a higher percentage. When Stanley Milgram performed this experiment in the 1960's, computerized gaming and social media were not a factor in the lives of the subjects. The 60's were a much simpler time. Communication with a person face to face or over the telephone was all people had. The only other communication was a television set. And yet, a surprising 65% of the "teachers" gave a 450 volt electrical shock to the student. A real 450 volt shock would potentially kill a person.
Today, in 2018, virtual reality has made society less sensitive to the effects of an experiment such as this. In a study by Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, Stanford Psychiatrist and author of the book, Virtually You, The Dangers of the E-Personality, mentioned the immersion of 3-D technology will change society and people's social lives. He states, “To some degree, this has already happened with the Internet and social media, where we can have a ‘full life’ [online] that can be quite removed from our own.”
Essentially, what is happening is society is becoming less sensitive to the needs and concerns of one another as they participate in a type of 'escape-ism' from reality through social media, gaming, and other computerized virtual realities.

Milgram’s famous experiment concluded that people are willing to inflict pain or suffering on others if instructed to do so by an authority figure.
Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly believe the results of Milgram’s experiment would reach the same conclusion if the experiment were conducted today.
The reasons are simple: human nature throughout the course of history changes very little, if at all. The cyclical nature of history itself demonstrates this to be true.
For example, the torture endured by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in the early 2000s shows the callousness of those in power. It is quite possible that a few of the soldiers who participated in the heinous abuse of prisoners were hesitant to do so at first, but they went along with it because superior officers were engaging in the behavior.
Consider gang-like organizations in which lower level members commit heinous acts of violence at the behest of the organization’s leadership.
People are all too willing to abandon their moral conscience when assured that what they are doing is permissible.

Who is responsible for Tom Robinson's fate?

That is a very interesting question, and one that does not have an easy answer. For one thing, there are quite a few people in the story who can be held in some way accountable for what happens to Tom. First of all, there is Mayella Ewell, who makes what she knows full well is a totally false accusation of rape against Tom. Then there is her repulsive father, Bob, the instigator behind the phony accusation. He is tired of being a despised nobody in Maycomb; pointing the finger of blame at Tom allows him to act like a hero and pose as a defender of white womanhood's honor against the rapacious threat of savage black men.
Perhaps we could also look at the twelve jurors. They were so blinded by racial prejudice that they willfully ignored and overlooked the massive holes in the prosecution's case. They were only supposed to convict Tom if the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, because the case against Tom was so flimsy, it is obvious that there was more than just that involved.
Finally, there are the prison guards who shot Tom seventeen times as he tried to escape. They were immediately responsible for his death in that they fired the fatal shots. They did not really see Tom as a human being. To them, he was just a dangerous Negro criminal needing to be taken out.
In truth, though, Tom's tragic fate had been decided long before his actual death. Maybe we should not look so intently at the actions of individuals. Instead, we might like to concentrate on the systemic racism and prejudice that helped to create and shape those actions. This is not intended to absolve anyone from the shameful part they played in Tom's eventual demise, but by examining the wider context of how these people made their choices, we can gain a better understanding of why people often act as they do, in ways that most of us find completely unacceptable.

What did Moishe the Beadle try to warn the Jews of Sighet about? How did he know the danger? How did the Jews react?

Moishe the Beadle tried to warn the Jews of Sighet of impending doom. He understood that the Jews were in grave danger because of an important fact: no one from the first group of deportees survived the onslaught of bullets and the savagery of the Gestapo. Only Moishe survived. He was wounded in the leg and left for dead. Under those circumstances, the chances of surviving and making the long journey back to Sighet would have been a practical impossibility. Yet Moishe made it back.
Thus, Moishe concluded that his survival was a God-given miracle, designed for an important purpose. That purpose was to warn the Jews in Sighet of their impending danger. For their part, the Jews ignored all of Moishe's impassioned warnings. They refused to believe him, preferring to hold onto their preconceived notions about the war and its progression. Many perished in the coming holocaust.
The last we hear about Moishe is just before the Nazi proclamation that every Jew has to wear the yellow star. Upon hearing that the Jews in Sighet have also been banned from leaving their homes for three days, Moishe shouts, "I warned you."
We don't know Moishe's final fate, but we can see from the text that his words of warning were prescient.

In Chapter 1, Moishe the Beadle is expelled from the village of Sighet and crammed into a cattle car by the Hungarian police because he is a foreigner. After a few months had gone by, Moishe the Beadle returns to Sighet and explains to the villagers how he barely survived a massacre. He begins by telling the villagers that the Gestapo had driven the foreign Jews to a forest and ordered them to dig huge trenches. He then says that the Gestapo took aim and shot every Jew. Moishe mentions that the Gestapo were throwing infants in the air and shooting at them like targets. Moishe explains to Eliezer that he wanted to warn the Jews in Sighet about the horrors he had witnessed so that they could prepare to leave. However, Moishe weeps because nobody will listen to him. They think that he is lying and call him mad.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 4, 4.2, Section 4.2, Problem 8

Solve the system of equations $
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

5x - 2y + 3z =& -9 \\
4x + 3y + 5z =& 4 \\
2x + 4y - 2z =& 14

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

-25x + 10y - 15z =& 45
&& -5 \times \text{ Equation 1}
\\
12x + 9y + 15z =& 12
&& 3 \times \text{ Equation 2}
\\
\hline

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

-13x + 19y \phantom{+ 15z} =& 57
&& \text{Add}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

10x - 4y + 6z =& -18
&& 2 \times \text{ Equation 1}
\\
6x + 12y - 6z =& 42
&& 3 \times \text{Equation 3}
\\
\hline

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

16x + 8y \phantom{-6z} =& 24
&& \text{Add}
\\
2x + y =& 3
&& \text{Reduce to lowest terms}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

-13x + 19y =& 57
&& \text{Equation 4}
\\
2x + y =& 3
&& \text{Equation 5}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


We write the equations in two variables as a system


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

-13x + 19y =& 57
&&
\\
-38x - 19y =& -57
&& -19 \times \text{ Equation 5}
\\
\hline

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

-51x \phantom{-19y} =& 0
&& \text{Add}
\\
x =& 0
&& \text{Divide each side by $-51$}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

2(0) + y =& 3
&& \text{Substitute $x = 0$ in Equation 5}
\\
y =& 3
&&

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

5(0) -2(3) + 3z =& -9
&& \text{Substitute $x = 0$ and $y = 3$ in Equation 1}
\\
-6 + 3z =& -9
&& \text{Multiply}
\\
3z =& -3
&& \text{Add each side by $6$}
\\
z =& -1
&& \text{Divide each side by $3$}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The ordered triple is $(0,3,-1)$.

Why was Paul content to play backup goalie?

Paul originally tries out for the Lake Windsor Middle School soccer team, but isn't picked due to his visual impairment. The terms of the school's insurance policy will be voided if they allow someone with Paul's disabilities to participate in sports. Not surprisingly, Paul is pretty upset at the news, especially as he wants to prove to everyone that his eyesight is not as bad as they think it is.
So when Paul moves to a new school, Tangerine Middle, he is pleasantly surprised when Ms. Bright, the coach, tells him he can be backup goalie for the soccer team. Most people might not be too pleased with such a lowly position on the team, but Paul sees this as his big break, a chance to make his mark and show everyone what he can do. He is also very glad that someone has finally seen past his disability to recognize his talent.

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 8, 8.8, Section 8.8, Problem 51

Basis (n=1)
We will use integration by parts
int u dv=uv-int v du
int_0^infty xe^-x dx=|[u=x,dv=e^-x dx],[du=dx,v=-e^-x]|=
-xe^-x|_0^infty+int_0^infty e^-x dx=(-xe^-x-e^-x)|_0^infty=
lim_(x to infty)(-xe^-x-e^-x)-(0-1)=
In order to calculate the above integral we shall use L'Hospital's rule:
lim_(x to a)(f(x))/(f(x))=lim_(x to a) (f'(x))/(g'(x))
First we rewrite the limit so we could use L'hospital's rule.
lim_(x to infty)-xe^-x=lim_(x to infty)-x/e^x=
Now we differentiate.
lim_(x to infty)-1/e^x=0
Let us now return to calculating the integral.
0-0-0+1=1
As we can see the integral converges to 1.

Let us assume that integral int_0^infty x^n e^-x dx converges for all n leq k.
Step (n=k+1)
We will once again use integration by parts.
int_0^infty x^(k+1)e^-x dx=|[u=x^(k+1),dv=e^-x dx],[du=(k+1)x^k dx,v=-e^-x]|=
-x^(k+1)e^-x|_0^infty+(k+1)int_0^infty x^k e^-x dx
From the assumption we know that the above integral converges, therefore we only need to show that x^(k+1)e^-x|_0^infty also converges.
x^(k+1)e^-x|_0^infty=lim_(x to infty)x^(k+1)e^-x-0=lim_(x to infty) x^(k+1)/e^x
If we now apply L'Hospital's rule k+1 times, we will get
lim_(x to infty) ((k+1)!)/e^x=0
Thus, we have shown that the integral converges for n=k+1 concluding the induction.
QED
The image below shows graphs of the function under integral for different values of n. We can see that x-axis is asymptote for all of the graphs meaning that the function converges to zero for all n. The only difference is that the convergence gets a little bit slower as n increases and so the area under the graph increases as well. However, the area remains finite for all n in NN, as we have already concluded.

“The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it moves again” (William Faulkner, Paris Review interview). Use this quotation as the starting point for an analysis of verisimilitude in Robinson Crusoe.

Faulkner here is talking about the kind of descriptive detail that makes a former time and place seem real to a reader. In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe is famous for providing minute description that makes Crusoe's adventure come alive. Although the book is a work of fiction, Defoe writes it as if it's the actual journal account of a shipwrecked sailor.
Unlike a romance or, for instance, Shakespeare's play The Tempest, also about a shipwrecked European managing to survive on a deserted island, no magical entities emerge to help Crusoe out of his predicament. Part of the story's ongoing appeal is that Crusoe has to survive entirely by his own wits, without any supernatural help (though he does gain a greater faith in God during his time on the island). If he wants to eat, he has to hunt and grow crops. If he wants to hunt, no magical bird is going to give him enchanted arrows: he has to get back on his submerged ship and find gunpowder and bullets.
Getting back to Faulkner's quote, it is Defoe's realism, in showing every detail of how Crusoe manages to survive, that holds a moment of time "fixed," so that you can step through the pages and into that world.
Examples of the details of Crusoe's methods of surviving and thriving abound in the novel. Here are several. In the first two, Crusoe tells us in detail what he brings off the submerged ship. We can visualize this, such as when he heads to the boat in low tide, and we understand how these items will help him to survive. No detail is too small: he brings all the "small ropes" he can get; he cuts the sails into pieces to use as canvas:

every day at low water I went on board, and brought away something or other; but particularly the third time I went I brought away as much of the rigging as I could, as also all the small ropes and rope-twine I could get, with a piece of spare canvas, which was to mend the sails upon occasion, and the barrel of wet gunpowder. In a word, I brought away all the sails, first and last; only that I was fain to cut them in pieces, and bring as much at a time as I could, for they were no more useful to be sails, but as mere canvas only.

In the quote below, he brings us on the scene as if freezing time as he describes finding food on the vessel. He even tells us how he wrapped up the bread:

every day at low water I went on board, and brought away something or other; but particularly the third time I went I brought away as much of the rigging as I could, as also all the small ropes and rope-twine I could get, with a piece of spare canvas, which was to mend the sails upon occasion, and the barrel of wet gunpowder. In a word, I brought away all the sails, first and last; only that I was fain to cut them in pieces, and bring as much at a time as I could, for they were no more useful to be sails, but as mere canvas only.

Crusoe then tells us about the fruit he found on the island, including on what day, and his practical concerns about the grapes, and how he dries them for food:

The next day, the sixteenth, I went up the same way again; and after going something further than I had gone the day before, I found the brook and the savannahs cease, and the country become more woody than before. In this part I found different fruits, and particularly I found melons upon the ground, in great abundance, and grapes upon the trees. The vines had spread, indeed, over the trees, and the clusters of grapes were just now in their prime, very ripe and rich. This was a surprising discovery, and I was exceeding glad of them; but I was warned by my experience to eat sparingly of them; remembering that when I was ashore in Barbary, the eating of grapes killed several of our Englishmen, who were slaves there, by throwing them into fluxes and fevers. But I found an excellent use for these grapes; and that was, to cure or dry them in the sun, and keep them as dried grapes or raisins are kept, which I thought would be, as indeed they were, wholesome and agreeable to eat when no grapes could be had.

These are simply a few examples of how Defoe puts us right there with Crusoe, and is why this book is often called the first novel. If you flip through the book, you will find so much more description of Crusoe's new life.

What is an example of satire in Chekhov's play The Bear?

Satire is defined as constructive criticism delivered by mocking an element’s shortcomings in a humorous way to bring attention to the issue. The criticism is achieved through irony and sarcasm with the aim of instigating change or addressing a sensitive topic.
In the play by Chekhov, Smirnov is pressed to pay his debt, but none of his debtors wants to pay him back. His situation gets worse when Popova, one of his debtors, claims she is in no mood to discuss financial issues. Smirnov employs sarcasm to draw attention to his predicament and hopes that Popova will pay.

SMIRNOV: Thank you. [He shrugs his shoulders.] And they expect me to stand for all that. The toll-gatherer just now met me in the road and asked why I was always worrying. Why, in Heaven's name, shouldn't I worry? I need money; I feel the knife at my throat. Yesterday morning I left my house in the early dawn and called on all my debtors. If even one of them had paid his debt! I worked the skin off my fingers! The devil knows in what sort of Jew-inn I slept; in a room with a barrel of brandy! And now at last I come here, seventy versts from home, hope for a little money, and all you give me is moods! Why shouldn't I worry?

Smirnov is relentless in his quest, and Popova accuses him of not knowing how to treat a lady. Smirnov employs sharp irony and sarcasm to criticize Popova’s beliefs. His criticisms bring to attention the general gender issues that exist within the society.

SMIRNOV: [Imitating her.] Not at all funny--vulgar! I don't understand how to behave in the company of ladies. Madam, in the course of my life I have seen more women than you have sparrows… I am not speaking of present company, but of women in general; from the tiniest to the greatest, they are conceited, hypocritical, chattering, odious, deceitful from top to toe; vain, petty, cruel with a maddening logic and [he strikes his forehead] in this respect, please excuse my frankness, but one sparrow is worth ten of the aforementioned petticoat-philosophers.

Is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen written in Old, Middle, or Modern English?

I think there's a tendency to underestimate just how radically different Old English, Middle English, and Modern English are from one another, and the degree to which the English language has evolved across the centuries. Consider how often Shakespeare is referred to as Old English. In truth, Shakespeare is Modern English. He's antiquated Modern English, but he's Modern English nonetheless. Old English refers to the language as it existed from around 450 CE to around 1150 CE (see attached web-link from the British Library). This isn't merely antiquated: this is a language that modern English speakers would not be able to understand without specialized training. To see what Old English looks like, I'd refer you to the original untranslated Beowulf, which begins as follows: "Hwaet. We Gardena in geardagum,/beodcyninga, brym gefrunon..." That is an example of Old English. Middle English, on the other hand, is used in reference to the time frame which lasts until around roughly 1500 CE (an example of Middle English can be found in Chaucer). Thus, Jane Austen, who lived from 1775 to 1817, is very much an example of Modern English (which is reflected in the language which she used). Take Pride and Prejudice, which begins as follows: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." This language is far more contemporary than the sort of language one might find in Chaucer, let alone in Beowulf.
https://www.bl.uk/medieval-literature/articles/old-english

Texts were composed in Old English between the beginning of the seventh-century (~600) through the end of the eleventh-century (~1066), approximately. Scholars often use the date of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 as the boundary between the use of Old English and Middle English, and Middle English is used in texts composed after this, from the end of the eleventh-century (following the Norman Conquest) to the beginning of the sixteenth-century. From around 1500 to 1550, a major shift in the pronunciation of vowels in English occurred, and its completion marks the beginning of the use of Modern English. Therefore, when Jane Austen begins writing at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth-centuries, we are well within the era of the usage of Modern English. When you read her works, you will see that, for the most part, although some meanings have changed, she is generally easy for a twenty-first-century reader to understand, especially compared to works written in Old English (which reads, frankly, like a completely different language!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English

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

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

What is meant by shifting standards when judging members of different groups? What is an example? What is Asch's early work on the idea of central traits? How are these ideas related to other research presented on impression formation?

The concept of shifting standards is defined as the idea that our judgements are based on something we hold to be standard, and these standards may shift depending on multiple factors. For example, we all have the ability to judge that another person is tall, yet how do we define tall? Our perception of tallness changes, or shifts, based on if we are judging a man or a woman. Scholars Monica Biernat and Melvin Manis (1994) give us the example that a woman measuring 5'9" might be considered "very tall," but the same height would not be considered tall for a man ("Shifting Standards and Stereotype-Based Judgements," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1).Stereotypes often produce shifts in standards. To prove the existence of shifting standards, researchers have designed studies in which they compare participants' subjective judgements with objective judgements. In their article, Biernat and Manis refer to an earlier study done by Biernat, Manis, and Nelson (1991), published in the article titled "Stereotypes and Standards of Judgement," found in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which participants were given photographs to view and asked to make judgements based on units of measure, which would be objective judgements, and to make judgements based on adjectives, which would be subjective judgements (as cited in (Biernat & Manis, 1994). In their study, participants were asked to judge how much money the participants thought men and women in photographs earned and were also asked to judge how financially successful the men and women were. Because of the stereotype that men earn more than women, the candidates judged the men in the photographs as earning a higher income in dollars per year than the women, which is an objective judgement. Yet, since, based on the stereotype, women earn less than men, participants' standards shifted when subjectively judging the women based on financial success. Candidates showed they believed that a woman who earned fewer dollars per year than a man could be considered more financially successful than a man, relative to the stereotypical success standard of women. Therefore, though candidates judged a woman as earning $9,000 less than a man in a photo, their standards shifted as they judged the woman to be more financially successful than the man.Solomon Asch's work on conformity in the 1950s goes hand in hand with studies on shifting standards. Solomon's work shows that people tend to conform with a group they see as peers, which means a person will shift his or her own standard of judgement to conform with a group's judgement. In one experiment, participants were separated into a group of confederates who were told how to reply to the test questions and one true test subject. Participants were shown a card with one vertical line used as a standard measure. Participants were then shown a second card with three vertical lines of different lengths and asked to judge which line on the second card was closest in length to the standard line on the first card. During the first two trials, all participants gave the correct answer. Starting with the third trial, all confederates gave the wrong answer, leaving the true test subject to choose the correct answer on his or her own. As the trials progressed, the true test subject gave into peer pressure more and more by giving the same incorrect answer given by the confederates ("Solomon Asch," New World Encyclopedia). Not only does Asch's work show that people have a tendency to conform when feeling pressured by peers, people will also shift their standards in order to conform.

Precalculus, Chapter 7, 7.3, Section 7.3, Problem 11

2x-y+5z=24
y+2z=6
z=8
Substitute back the value of z in the second equation,
y+2*8=6
y+16=6
y=6-16
y=-10
Now substitute back the value of y and z in the first equation,
2x-(-10)+5*8=24
2x+10+40=24
2x+50=24
2x=24-50
2x=-26
x=(-26)/2
x=-13
Solutions of the equations are x=-13 , y=-10 and z=8

What is a summary of Chapter One of Nightjohn by Gary Paulsen?

The chapter begins with Sarny introducing herself to us. She tells us that her story is really about Nightjohn and how he came to live on the plantation.
Sarny relates that Clel Waller is an abusive master and that the slaves call him names behind his back. For her part, Sarny largely keeps to herself; she prefers to observe her surroundings quietly.
As a young girl, she remembers Delie (her Mammy) telling her about her birth mother. Sarny was four when her birth mother was sold, but she doesn't remember much about her mother. What she does know is that all slave babies are given over to a wet nurse, and after they are weaned, they are given to Delie to raise. No birth mother ever gets to raise her own child.
To help keep track of each child's age, Delie carves notches onto individual sticks. Until a girl slave is ready for breeding, she performs odd chores about the plantation and helps Mammy with the little children. Delie tells us that one of her favorite places to work is in the flower beds. There, she can listen to the women of the house talk (the flower beds are directly under a window), and she can learn about everything that occurs on the plantation.
At the end of the day, she likes to lie down on her pallet next to Mammy and the babies. During this quiet time, she enjoys thinking back on everything she has learned. The only thing that makes her sad about this time is that she has little memory of her birth mother and so can't think about her as much as she would like. The chapter ends with Sarny relating that she first heard about Nightjohn while she was working in the flower beds.

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 7, 7.4, Section 7.4, Problem 34

We will use formula for arc length of curve y=f(x) for a leq x leq b.
L=int_a^b sqrt(1+y'^2)dx
Differentiating the given equation yields
2/3x^(-1/3)+2/3y^(-1/3)y'=0
From this we get
y'=-y^(1/3)/x^(1/3)
Looking at the image below, we can see that the astroid is made up of four identical arches. Therefore, if we calculate length of one such arc we will know the total length of the graph.
Let us therefore, calculate the arc in the first quadrant. Lower bound of integration will obviously be 0, while the upper bound will be the point where the curve touches x-axis (where y=0).
x^(2/3)=4
x=4^(3/2)
x=8
Hence, the quarter of the total length is
1/4L=int_0^8sqrt(1+(-y^(1/3)/x^(1/3))^2)dx=
int_0^8sqrt(1+y^(2/3)/x^(2/3))dx=
int_0^8sqrt((x^(2/3)+y^(2/3))/x^(2/3))dx=
Notice that the numerator is equal to the left side of the given equation which is equal to 4.
int_0^8 2/x^(1/3)dx=int_0^8sqrt(4/x^(2/3))dx=2int_0^8 x^(-1/3)dx=2cdot3/2x^(2/3)|_0^8=
3cdot(4-0)=12
Now we know that
1/4L=12
Multiplying the both sides by 4 gives us the final result
L=48

How does John Keats use language to describe the Nile?

Keats's poem “To the Nile” is, as its name suggests, addressed to the large river that flows through Egypt. The poet makes use of several literary devices to convey a sense of its character and describe its features. Keats begins with a metaphor, describing the Nile as “son of the Moon-mountains African!” Here, Keats is referring to the “Mountains of the Moon,” a legendary mountain range at the source of the Nile in east Africa. By stating that the river is the “son” of these mountains, he expresses the idea of the river emerging out of, or being produced by, these mountains. (As a side note, the Mountains of the Moon were never found, although scholars have put forward a number of candidates for the title). Another metaphor follows: “Chief of the Pyramid and crocodile!” This suggests the Nile is all-powerful in Egypt, ruling over all aspects of life. Keats employs descriptive terms to convey the sense of the Nile as creating or helping to sustain life. It is “fruitful” and a “nurse.” The river is then placed in sharp contrast to the barren surrounding land: “A desert fills our seeings inward span.” Keats concludes his poem by referring to the “ignorance that makes a barren waste of all beyond itself.” Here, he is pointing to the way the barren land is ignorant of (doesn't know) the Nile and its “fruitful” qualities. He finishes by comparing the Nile to “our rivers,” by which he means those in Britain and Europe, writing, “Thou dost bedew Green rushes like our rivers, and dost taste The pleasant sunrise. Green isles hast thou too, And to the sea as happily dost haste.”
http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/65/to-the-nile.html

Which literary devices does O'Flaherty use to communicate his theme in "The Sniper"? (Please provide examples from quotes.)

First, there are some important main themes in this story: the visceral nature of physical conflict, the finality of death, and the dehumanizing nature of war.
In the story, the author uses anaphora to emphasize the visceral nature of physical conflict and the dehumanizing nature of war. Anaphora is the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive sentences.

He was eating a sandwich hungrily. He had eaten nothing since morning. He had been too excited to eat.
The sniper raised his rifle and fired. The head fell heavily on the turret wall. The woman darted toward the side street. The sniper fired again. The woman whirled round and fell with a shriek into the gutter.
The woman’s corpse lay still in the gutter. The sniper lay still for a long time nursing his wounded arm and planning escape.
His teeth chattered, he began to gibber to himself, cursing the war, cursing himself, cursing everybody.

In the above quotes, the author emphasizes that war has very real consequences for everyone. Soldiers fight to the death, and everyone endures privation, fear, and extreme provocation at every turn of the conflict. Strong emotions take hold when death threatens. Grim actions occur in split seconds, emphasizing the sometimes furious pace of war.
The author also uses similes and metaphors to characterize the dehumanizing nature of war.

Here and there through the city, machine guns and rifles broke the silence of the night, spasmodically, like dogs barking on lone farms. Republicans and Free Staters were waging civil war.
His bullets would never pierce the steel that covered the gray monster.

In the first quote, the author uses a simile to equate the noise of machine guns and rifles to that of "dogs barking on lone farms." The simile emphasizes the stark reality of the deafening sounds of battle. In the second quote, the author uses a metaphor to describe the enemy's armored vehicle. The tank is like a gray monster, capable of inflicting maximum damage on those who dare to challenge it.
The author also uses visual imagery to highlight all his main themes.

The blood was oozing through the sleeve of his coat. There was no pain—just a deadened sensation, as if the arm had been cut off.
The armoured car had retired speedily over the bridge, with the machine gunner’s head hanging lifeless over the turret.
His face was the face of a student, thin and ascetic, but his eyes had the cold gleam of the fanatic. They were deep and thoughtful, the eyes of a man who is used to looking at death.

In the first quote, we see the blood oozing through the sleeve. The wound is painful and debilitating. The sniper finds himself weakening. In the second quote, we see the gunner's head hanging over the turret. These are disconcerting images. Essentially, war continues, without respect to the dead or injured. In the third quote, we get a "glimpse" of the sniper. He is thin, and his eyes have the "cold gleam of a fanatic." The dehumanizing aspect of war is emphasized in the imagery of a soldier who must accustom himself to "looking at death."
https://rhetorica.net/tropes.htm

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 5, 5.4, Section 5.4, Problem 27

You need to evaluate the definite integral using the fundamental theorem of calculus, such that: int_a^b f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx = int_0^pi 5e^x dx + int_0^pi 3sin x dx
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx = (5e^x - 3cos x)|_0^pi
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx =5e^pi - 3cos pi - 5e^0 + 3cos 0
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx = 5e^pi - 3*(-1) - 5 + 3
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx = 5e^pi + 1
Hence, evaluating the definite integral yields
int_0^pi (5e^x+ 3sin x)dx = 5e^pi + 1

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.7, Section 3.7, Problem 11

a.) Recall that the area of the square is $A = x^2$ where $x$ is the lenght of the sides of the square.

$\displaystyle A'(x) = \frac{d}{dx} (x^2) $
$\displaystyle A'(x) = 2x$

when $x = 15mm$
$\displaystyle A'(15) = 2 (15)$
$\displaystyle A'(15) = 30 \frac{mm^2}{mm}$


$A'(15)$ represents the rate at which the area is increasing with respect to the side of length x as it approach $15mm$.

b.) Recall that the perimeter is the sum of all sides, for square, we have $P(x) = 4x$, so $\displaystyle x = \frac{P(x)}{4}$ and we know that the rate of change of the area of the square is $A'(x) = 2x$
Hence,

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
A'(x) &= 2 \left( \frac{P(x)}{4}\right) = \frac{P(x)}{2}\\
\\
A'(x) &= \frac{P(x)}{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$





Hence, the resulting change in area is
$\Delta A = 2x (\Delta x) + (\Delta x)^2$
if $\Delta x$ is negligible,
$\Delta A \approx 2x \Delta x$

Use Hooke's Law to determine the variable force in the spring problem. An overhead garage door has two springs, one on each side of the door. A force of 15 pounds is required to stretch each spring 1 foot. Because of the pulley system, the springs stretch only one-half the distance the door travels. The door moves a total of 8 feet, and the springs are at their natural length when the door is open. Find the work done by the pair of springs.

As the problem stated, we first need to figure out the spring constant.  Hooke's Law says that the spring constant can be calculated by dividing the force by the distance of movement.  It takes 15 pounds of force to move the spring 1 foot, so the spring constant is 15.  
A stretched spring has elastic potential energy.  The potential energy that is stored in the spring is equal to the work done to stretch the spring in the first place.  That means the potential energy in the spring is equal to the work that the spring can do; therefore, calculating the spring's potential energy will give you the work done by the spring when the door opens.  
The formula for calculating a spring's potential energy (work) is PE = (kx^2)/2. K is the spring constant.  X is the total movement of the spring from its rest position. The door moves a total of 8 feet, and the problem stated that the springs move half that distance. 
(15 x 4^2)/2 = work
(15 x 16)/2 = work
240/2 = work
120 foot pounds = work
Remember, there are two springs both doing the work, so the answer needs to be doubled.  The total work being done by the springs is 240 foot pounds. 
One last detail.  The work is technically a negative number (-240 foot pounds) in this case.  That's because the motion of the springs is opposite to that of the garage door. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot2.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pespr.html

How does the judicial branch interact with the other branches?

The government of the United States is divided into three branches in order to ensure that authority is divided equally and that no one branch is able to gain too much power (also known as checks and balances). Each branch has its own distinct role to make sure that our government runs as smoothly as possible. Making laws is the duty of the legislative branch, which is headed by Congress. The President leads the executive branch and is responsible for putting the laws into action. Laws are evaluated and applied to individual cases by the Supreme Court, which is the head of the judicial branch.
Because the judicial branch has the power to decide whether or not the laws created by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch violate the Constitution, they are able to monitor the power of these two branches. Justices of the Supreme Court interpret the laws and evaluate them to make sure they are in accordance with the Constitution. 
The other branches are also able to check the power of the judicial branch. Justices are nominated by the President and then reviewed by the Senate. In order for a judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court, they are subject to approval by both of the other branches of government, though Congress makes the final decision.

Of what does Doodle seem to be most fearful in "The Scarlet Ibis"?

Doodle seems afraid of being left behind by his brother.
Perhaps, it is the fact that the narrator is the one who urges Doodle to make physical accomplishments that effects Doodle's dependency upon his brother. Then, too, the brother is made to take Doodle with him after his father fashions a cart in which to pull the small boy. Thus, having to transport Doodle everywhere with him, the narrator decides,

Doodle was my brother, and he was going to cling to me forever, no matter what I did, so I dragged him across the burning cotton field to share with him the only beauty I knew, Old Woman Swamp.

The ironic thing about Doodle's "clinging" is that it becomes his tragic undoing because the brother is what he himself characterizes as a slave to his pride, and he coerces the frail Doodle into learning how to swim and row a boat so that he will not seem so pitiful. Then, when a storm comes up one day that they are out on the water, 

The knowledge that Doodle's and my plans had come to naught was bitter, and that streak of cruelty within me awakened. 

The narrator races ahead of Doodle, who pleads for his brother to wait for him. When the brother's "childish spite evanesced," he finally stops. However, he does not hear Doodle, so he turns back and discovers that his frail "scarlet ibis" of a brother has died.

What two sounds did Helen hear after she was awakened by her sister’s screams? What did her sister then say?

In "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," Helen Stoner (the protagonist of this story) approaches Sherlock Holmes with a mystery regarding her twin sister's death. She begins by offering Holmes background information about her family, their childhood travels, and their current living arrangements. During this conversation, she shares that their family grew up in India. Their mother, a widow, ended up marrying a man named Dr. Roylott, who was known to commit acts of violence. When they married, the twins' mother brought a large amount of money into their marriage. Later, the family moved back to London, England. The girls' mother, after arriving in their home country, died. In her will, she left the majority of her money to her children upon their marriages. (Women, in this time, were not generally willed money. It usually went to the males in a family. Therefore, they could not receive the money until they married.)
This left the girls, while unmarried, to live with Dr. Roylott, their stepfather, in his old family mansion with his strange and dangerous pets (including a cheetah and a baboon). Not surprisingly, the girls did not feel very safe while living in their stepfather's home. It's also important to recognize that their stepfather didn't want the girls to socialize in their new community. Perhaps he didn't want them to meet any men that they might want to marry.
Even so, Julia Stoner did end up meeting a young man who wanted to marry her. Her uncle didn't seem overly troubled about their engagement, but soon afterward, she started hearing strange noises in the middle of the night. The wedding date grew nearer. One night, Helen, her twin sister, heard Julia's scream and ran down the hall to her room. She explains to Sherlock:

"As I opened my door I seemed to hear a low whistle, such as my sister described, and a few moments later a clanging sound, as if a mass of metal had fallen."

Her sister looked like she is in great pain, she was pale with a look of fright, and she barely got out a few words before she died. Her words were,

"Oh, my God! Helen! It was the band! The speckled band!"

Julia explains that it looked like she had more she wanted to say, but the pain took over too quickly and she died before she could continue.
Julia's death leaves Helen frightened. She imagines it may have had something to do with her stepfather, but no one can figure out how Julia died. When Helen is talking to Sherlock Holmes, she has recently gotten engaged. She is worried that she might also be in danger and is asking Sherlock Holmes to get involved in solving the mystery of her sister's death (and hopefully keeping Helen safe from similar harm).
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1661/1661-h/1661-h.htm