How can I take a fairy tale and turn it into a satirical piece, using all four methods of satire-exaggeration, reversal, incongruity, or parody?

Because fairy tales are, generally speaking, already larger than life, you may want to avoid choosing exaggeration as your main method of satire when you create your satirical piece. Of course you can still include it (caricature exaggeration might work well for a character that doesn't already have an extremely exaggerated trait), but I would suggest putting your main focus on parody, incongruity, or reversal.
Think of fairy tales you liked when you were younger, ones you know well. There are the obvious ones, like Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, and Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Then, there are stories that aren't told quite as often, like Rumplestilskin, The Frog Prince, and The Wild Swans. Because you will be presenting before a class, and you want your peers to understand the changes you've made to the story, you probably don't wont to go with something too obscure.
When choosing a fairy tale, think of what makes it conducive to satire. What changes can you make? Maybe Cinderella chooses not to end up with the prince for some reason. Maybe Little Red Riding Hood takes out a restraining order out on the Big Bad Wolf. Maybe we see a story from the villain's perspective. Maybe you bring a story into a different time period, changing the context. Just thinking of one effective change you can make to a story will lead you to plenty of ideas that make your piece a successful satire.
If you want some good examples of popular fairy tales that satirize the genre, you could take a look at Shrek or The Princess Bride.

What are 4 or 5 quotes from O Pioneers! that help exemplify the theme of the American breed of determination and confidence?

Here are some quotes from O Pioneers! that relate to the theme of American confidence and determination.

"That evening, after she had washed the supper dishes, Alexandra sat down on the kitchen doorstep, while her mother was mixing the bread. It was a still, deep-breathing summer night, full of the smell of the hay fields. Sounds of laughter and splashing came up from the pasture, and when the moon rose rapidly above the bare rim of the prairie, the pond glittered like polished metal, and she could see the flash of white bodies as the boys ran about the edge, or jumped into the water. Alexandra watched the shimmering pool dreamily, but eventually her eyes went back to the sorghum patch south of the barn, where she was planning to make her new pig corral." In this quote, Alexandra Bergson regards the beauty of the land with an eye mainly toward improving it. While the boys experience the joys of swimming, she mainly thinks about how the land can be useful in producing food. She is determined to make the land fruitful.

"Down there they have a little certainty, but up with us there is a big chance. We must have faith in the high land, Emil. I want to hold on harder than ever, and when you’re a man you’ll thank me.” In this quote, Alexandra speaks to her brother, Emil, about remaining confident about their land, even though the land is not doing well at the moment. She has faith that her confidence will pay off, and it does.
"For the first time, perhaps, since that land emerged from the waters of geologic ages, a human face was set toward it with love and yearning. It seemed beautiful to her, rich and strong and glorious. Her eyes drank in the breadth of it, until her tears blinded her. Then the Genius of the Divide, the great, free spirit which breathes across it, must have bent lower than it ever bent to a human will before. The history of every country begins in the heart of a man or a woman." In this lyrical quote, Alexandra expresses her deep connection to the land. Though the land has always been untamed, she is confident about her ability to tame it and make it bend to her will.
"The old wild country, the struggle in which his sister was destined to succeed while so many men broke their hearts and died, he can scarcely remember. That is all among the dim things of childhood and has been forgotten in the brighter pattern life weaves to-day, in the bright facts of being captain of the track team, and holding the interstate record for the high jump, in the all-suffusing brightness of being twenty-one." Emil and his family, under Alexandra's guidance, have been so successful he has forgotten how much effort was required to cultivate the land. Instead, he lives in a bright reality. 

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 8, 8.5, Section 8.5, Problem 10

int(x^3-x+3)/(x^2+x-2)dx
The given integrand is a improper rational function, as the degree of the numerator is more than the degree of the denominator. To apply the method of partial fractions,first we have to do a division with remainder.
(x^3-x+3)/(x^2+x-2)=(x-1)+(2x+1)/(x^2+x-2)
Since the polynomials do not completely divide, we have to continue partial fractions on the remainder.
We need to factor the denominator,
(2x+1)/(x^2+x-2)=(2x+1)/(x^2-x+2x-2)
=(2x+1)/(x(x-1)+2(x-1))
=(2x+1)/((x-1)(x+2))
Now let's create the partial fraction template,
(2x+1)/((x-1)(x+2))=A/(x-1)+B/(x+2)
Multiply the above equation by denominator,
=>2x+1=A(x+2)+B(x-1)
2x+1=Ax+2A+Bx-B
2x+1=(A+B)x+2A-B
Equating the coefficients of the like terms,
A+B=2 ------------------------(1)
2A-B=1 -------------------------(2)
Now we have to solve the above two linear equations to get A and B,
Add the equations 1 and 2,
A+2A=2+1
3A=3
A=1
Plug in the value of A in equation 1,
1+B=2
B=2-1=1
Now plug in the values of A and B in the partial fraction template,
(2x+1)/((x-1)(x+2))=1/(x-1)+1/(x+2)
Now we can evaluate the integral as,
int(x^3-x+3)/(x^2+x-2)dx=int((x-1)+1/(x-1)+1/(x+2))dx
Apply the sum rule,
=intxdx-int1dx+int1/(x-1)dx+int1/(x+2)dx
For the first and second integral apply the power rule and for the third and fourth integral use the common integral:int1/xdx=ln|x|
=x^2/2-x+ln|x-1|+ln|x+2|
Add a constant C to the solution,
=x^2/2-x+ln|x-1|+ln|x+2|+C

In both “A Rose for Emily” and “Killings,” how does love act as a driving force in these two stories? Why is the title of "Killings" plural rather than singular? How are flashbacks used in "Killings"?

Love is a driving force in both William Faulkner’s short story “A Rose for Emily” and Andre Dubus’s “Killings.” Emily Grierson is a disturbed woman whose concepts of love and relationships are fatally tarnished by her upbringing, her father having discouraged Emily from romantic connections. She lives a sheltered existence even after her father’s death and lives a solitary life with an aging African American housekeeper. The nature of her existence ultimately leads to the tragic developments that are revealed in the story’s conclusion. Emily has killed out of love, but it is not the purity of love that characterizes Matt and Ruth Fowler's feelings for their murdered son Frank. Nor is it the purity of love that leads Richard Strout to murder Frank. Both Emily Grierson and Richard Strout kill out of obsession. Both have serious psychological issues that are unresolved, albeit Emily can be considered a product of her environment and upbringing, while Richard displays the characteristics of a psychopath who is innately evil. Emily is a pathetic figure; Richard is a criminal. Of the killings that occur in these stories, it is Matt and Ruth’s murder of Richard that best exemplifies love. They (Ruth was not directly involved in the murder but is certainly morally and possibly legally complicit) plan and murder Richard Strout out of revenge, so painful is the loss of their son and so maddening the failure of the criminal justice system.
Dubus undoubtedly used the plural form of “killing” simply because multiple murders occur in his story. Frank’s murder is related in flashback sequences that explain the melancholy opening to “Killings” in the cemetery following Frank’s burial. Frank’s older brother, Steve, tells Matt, “I should kill him.” The stage is set for a murder motivated out of a desperate need for justice. Matt executes that mission. In the flashbacks, we learn of the nature of Frank’s death at the hands of the brutal, remorseless, and jealous former husband of his girlfriend. There are two killings is this story. Although, motivations differ in terms of the psychological conditions at play. There is, however, another, more metaphorical application of the word “killing.” That is the emotional deadening of Matt and Ruth following Frank’s death. They are still physically alive, but something inside both died when their youngest son was shot and killed.
Flashbacks, as noted in the above paragraph, are used to establish setting and to relate the motivations behind that opening scene at the cemetery. Flashbacks are routinely used by writers of both literature and film as a narrative tool to fill in vital gaps in stories. Why is this protagonist acting the way he or she is? What happened that has motivated this character to act in this manner? Flashbacks are an important device that help convey better than perhaps would occur in a more linear structure the motivations of the protagonist(s). They can lend the narrative a greater emotional effect. That is certainly the case in “Killings.”

In both "A Rose for Emily" and "Killings," the plot is driven by murder and by love. Emily long ago killed her lover, Homer Barron, to keep him forever with her (as she keeps his skeleton sealed in a room in her house). In "Killings," Matt is so overcome by grief when Richard Strout kills Matt's youngest son, Frank, that Matt decides to kill Richard in an act of vengeance. Both killings are motivated by love, even as they are also acts of hate and fear.
The title of the story "Killings" is plural because on a literal level, there are two killings in the story--both the murder of Frank and the later murder of Richard Strout. In addition, it is clear that Frank's murder has figuratively caused the deaths of his parents, Matt and Ruth. Dubus writes that since Frank's murder, Matt "had not so much moved through his life as wandered through it, his sprits like a dazed body bumping into furniture and corners." Since his son's death, Matt has not lived a full life but has been half-alive, and it is clear that his soul is dead. Similarly, after Homer Barron disappears (and presumably has been killed), Miss Emily seems dead. Faulkner writes, "the front door remained closed. Now and then we would see her at a window for a moment...but for almost six months she did not appear on the streets." Clearly, the murder of his son has caused Matt to die a figurative death, as has Emily's murder of her lover.
There are several flashbacks in both stories. For example, in "Killings," Dubus writes about how fearful Matt was as a father. Dubus writes about Matt's children climbing a tree in the back yard, "Smiling, he watched them, imagining the fall: and he was poised to catch the small body before it hit the earth." This flashback helps explain Matt's motivations for killing his son's murderer and his protective stance as a father. 

College Algebra, Chapter 9, 9.1, Section 9.1, Problem 12

Determine the first four terms and the 100th term of the sequence $ a_n = 3$
We have $n = 1,2,3,4$ for the first four terms $n = 100$th for 100th term

$
\left.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
a_1 &= 3 \\
\\
a_2 &= 3\\
\\
a_3 &= 3 \\
\\
a_4 &= 3
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\right\} \text{ First four terms}
$

$a_{100} = 3 \rightarrow \text{100th term}$

How old are the family members in The Swiss Family Robinson?

The protagonists of The Swiss Family Robinson are, of course, the members of that family. There is a couple, and they have three sons with them.  The sons are Fritz, Ernest, Jack, and Francis.
Fritz is the oldest of the children in the family.  We know that he is 14 years old at the time of the shipwreck.  The next son is Ernest.  He is 12 years old when the book begins.  The third son is Jack.  He is 10 years old at the start of the book.  Finally, there is Franz, the baby of the family.  He is 5 years old when the family is shipwrecked on the island. 
We can get all of this information from the first chapter of the book.  There, the narrator (who is the father) describes the people who are in the improvised boat that will get the family from the wrecked ship to land.  He says that, next to his wife,

was Franz, a sweet-tempered, affectionate little boy, nearly six years old. Then came Fritz, a handsome, spirited young fellow of fourteen; the two centre tubs contained the valuable cargo; then came our bold, thoughtless Jack, ten years old; next him twelve-year-old Ernest, my second son…

This gives you the ages of all of the children of the family.  The parents’ ages are not given in the book, though we would expect that Mrs. Robinson would be in her late 30s since her oldest son is 14.  It is likely that the father is somewhat older, as men in those days often married younger women.  However, that is just speculation.  We only actually know the ages of the children.

What does this quote from Grapes of Wrath mean? "If a man owns a little property, that property is him...But let a man get property he can't see, or can't take time to get his fingers in, or can't be there to walk on it - why, then the property is the man."

This quote comes from a tenant farmer speaking to a man driving a bulldozing tractor through the countryside, destroying the homes of poor farmers who work the land. The man driving the tractor works for a bank, which owns the land that once belonged to the poor farmers. The tenant attempts to argue with the tractor driver about destroying everyone's property, but the tractor driver refuses to take responsibility for his actions by saying that he has to feed his family. The tenant then begins to ponder about what the land means to the poor farmers, who are being exploited by the banks. The tenant tells the driver that if a man owns property and works it, the property becomes the man. When the land produces, the tenant farmer feels a sense of accomplishment and rejoices. He then says,

"But let a man get property he doesn't see, or can't take time to get his fingers in, or can't be there to walk on it—why, then the property is the man. He can't do what he wants, he can't think what he wants. The property is the man, stronger than he is. And he is small, not big. Only his possessions are big—and he's the servant of his property" (Steinbeck, 25).

The tenant farmer is essentially speaking about the callous nature of the banks and those who own the property. The people at the bank have no sentimental feelings regarding their property. Unlike the tenant farmers, they are detached and insensitive to the land they own. The people at the bank only view the land as a commodity, which is why they carelessly buy and sell large tracts at their convenience. This upsets the tenant farmer, who feels a deep attachment to the land he worked his entire life.