The Pagan Germans, Greeks, and other ancient peoples believed that fame and glory were the only things that survived after death. Find evidence...

The old Anglo-Saxon Pagan religions did not envision an afterlife that included heaven the way modern monotheistic religions generally do. Because of this, people often tried to achieve a measure of eternal life by building fame and a memorable reputation during their lifetimes. In Anglo-Saxon life, this was often accomplished in war.

We see this in Beowulf as Beowulf battles with Grendel's mother in her underwater cave. As he struggles against her, the poet says:

But Beowulf

Longed only for fame, leaped back

Into battle.

In the Greek epic The Odyssey, we hear the hero Odysseus describe himself to the Phaeacians this way:

I am Odysseus, son of Laertes, who am known among men for all manner of wiles, and my fame reaches unto heaven. 

It seems like Odysseus is bragging, and sometimes he is (his weakness is an occasional lack of humility), but to Odysseus this is just the fulfillment of his goal—to be a man that is admired and respected because of his intelligence and ability.

It is interesting to note that, although Beowulf and the Odyssey were composed hundreds of years apart and in completely different cultures, they share this common theme—men long to live on after death in some form; if not in heaven, then in the minds of other men.

Hi! I'm in grade 7, I need a simpler method to know how to solve this: A line segment ST has midpoint M=(-2,4) and the coordinates of point T...

The most straightforward method is to use the midpoint formula. The coordinates of the midpoint M, can be found as

,

Now, we do know the coordinates of the point M, but we do not know the coordinates of point S. We can plug in everything we know into the formulas and then solve for the unknowns.

For x-coordinate:

Multiply both sides by 2:

Subtract 1 from both sides: , or .

Similarly, for y-coordinate:

From here, and .

So point S has coordinates (-5, -1).

An alternative method to figure this out is to consider that since the midpoint divides the segment in half, it is the same distance from point S and point T.

The horizontal distance between point M and point T is the difference of x-coordinates: there are 3 units between and . Then, the x-coordinate of S must be 3 units away from : -2 - 3 = -5.

So

In the y direction, point M is 5 units away from T: and .

So y-coordinate of S will be 5 less than : 4 - 5 = -1. .

Again, point S has coordinates (-5, -1).

Depending on your personal preference, one method might seem simpler than another.

How did the Columbian Exchange and Industrial Revolution make The Jungle possible?

I would assume "the Jungle" being referred to in the question are the conditions in the meatpacking plants that were described by the muckraker Upton Sinclair in the book by the same name. Sinclair describes dangerous and unsanitary conditions for workers and the poor quality of product that was being produced. If that is the case, a correlation can be made between those conditions and the Columbian Exchange and Industrialism.

The Columbian Exchange introduced new foods such as potatoes and tomatoes to the continent of Europe. It was quickly discovered that these foods were tasty and easy to produce. The increase in food production because of the introduction of new crops that coincided with a warming period allowed the population of Europe to rapidly expand. The expansion of world population meant that food needed to be mass produced in the same way that non-food commodities were produced. The Industrial Revolution provided a model for this type of mass production and allowed food to be manufactured in a similar fashion. Also, the exploitation of workers for profit was a common result of Industrialism and is well documented in Upton Sinclair's book.

Which kind of action is an execution of fiscal policy, as opposed to monetary policy?

In the United States, at least, the execution of fiscal, as opposed to monetary, policy is a political action.  Fiscal policy is carried out by the elected branches of government while monetary policy is carried out the Federal Reserve, which is not elected. Thus, fiscal policy is more overtly political than monetary policy, which appears to be executed on a more technocratic basis.

Fiscal policy has to do with taxation and government spending.  By contrast, monetary policy has to do with manipulating the money supply through such things as changing interest rates and conducting open market operations.  In the United States, taxation and government spending are carried out by elected officials.  Laws about taxes, or laws that increase or decrease the level of government spending, must be enacted by Congress and carried out by the executive branch (which is directed by the president).  This type of policy is under the direct control of elected officials.  By contrast, monetary policy is carried out by the Fed.  Elected officials can try to put pressure on the Fed to act in certain ways, but they have no actual authority to force the Fed to do anything.

Thus, we can say that the execution of fiscal policy is a political action while the execution of monetary policy is not.

Which document created a national government that did not have the ability to tax or raise its own army without support from the states?

The correct answer to this question is the Articles of Confederation. The Articles, which were drafted after declaring independence and went into effect near the end of the war, created a relatively weak central government, a "firm league of friendship" in the words of the document itself. Not only could the national government not levy taxes or raise an army (it could only request these things from the state,) but it also could not pass a law without the assent of nine of thirteen state delegations in Congress. A unanimous vote was required to address the weaknesses of the government through amendment. All of this was intentional, as most of the Revolutionary generation was leery of ceding too much power to a central government. But it created problems for the new nation, particularly the inability to make payments on war debt, that prompted many of the nation's politicians to call for a new government. The result, eventually, was the Constitution developed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

What was the goal of their society?

The goal of the United States in 2081, according to the story "Harrison Bergeron," is for all citizens to be equal. The society believes it is not enough to have equal rights under the law or merely to be treated fairly. On the contrary, every person must have the same intellectual capacity, the same physical attractiveness, and the same level of talent. Thus, a person who is above average intellectually must wear an ear radio that emits distracting sounds every 20 seconds so that he or she will not excel in thinking. For people to use their full mental abilities would mean "taking unfair advantage of their brains." Likewise, those who are physically stronger must carry weights around so they feel as weak as weaker people. Beautiful people must wear masks to make them uglier. "Everybody competing against everyone else" is considered a quality of the "dark ages." The reason the society values this type of equality is because they want to ensure that no one will ever have feelings of inferiority. George thinks about the ballerinas:

"They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in." 

Based on Arthur Rowe's argument, what was the purpose or goal of the post-Enlightenment search for the "historical Jesus"?

In the post-Enlightenment period, many scholars were determined to find out the "facts" about Jesus' life and actions. At the time, these certain scholars felt that much of the Bible was romanticized or idealized. Perhaps the miracles in the Gospel were exaggerations, or the fantasies of the writers who were so fascinated by Jesus. These scholars wanted to set down the facts of Jesus' life as a historical biography of a man who changed the world, rather than, as Christians believe, a man who was not mortal but actually the Son of God.

The search for the historical Jesus was intended to eliminate the miracles, the myths, the stories, the religion, and the faith involved in the life of Jesus, and to make him into a great character in history rather than an eternal influence on it, as the Christ of Faith would be considered.

What kind of relationship is there between the children and their parents in the story "The Veldt"?

The relationship between the Hadley children and their parents, or the lack of it, is a core element of this story. The children's lack of emotional maturity, resulting in a stunted relationship with their parents, is directly responsible for their parent's eventual death in the nursery. Although Bradbury himself has said that the juvenile fantasy of killing one's parents was, in his perception, not uncommon, it was the facilitation of this fantasy by the technology of the nursery that allowed it to become the definition of their relationship.

The Hadley children are indirectly characterized by their mother before they appear in the story; she says they are increasingly distant, erratic, and seem to live only for their experiences in the nursery. They come and go as they please, and they treat their parents like children. They are, in short, utterly spoiled.

The children themselves, once they appear in the story, seem shy and deferent to their parents, but it quickly becomes apparent that lying and entitlement are the basis of their relationship with their parents at this point, with the purpose of maximizing their personal satisfaction. 

However, perhaps the most significant element of their relationship is the fact that they are blatantly and habitually fantasizing about their parents dying brutally at the hands of the lions in the nursery simulation. This suggests that the true nature of their relationship is more sinister, with the children masking their emotions and behaviors in order to mislead their parents into a false sense of physical security rather than simply avoid the loss of their privileges.

While it seems unlikely that the children were planning to physically harm their parents in the "real" world, the reality of their deaths inside the nursery call into question exactly where the boundary of that real world began, and whether it became deadly without their realizing it due to the nature of their parenting.

How does the power you generate, walking up the stairs, compare to a horse? How about when running up the stairs? (Hint: one hp=746 Watts) If one...

(A minor correction, actually power would be consumed and energy would be spent while climbing or running up the stairs).

Given the mass of a horse (in comparison to that of a person), a horse will consume much more power while walking or running or climbing the stairs. Power is the ratio of work done per unit time. Work done is the product of force times the displacement. Force is given as the product of mass and acceleration (due to gravity, for climbing). Thus, the power is given as the product of weight and displacement per unit time.

or, power = mgh/t

Assuming that an average adult human being has a mass of 70 kg and that one flight of stairs correspond to 20 steps, each of a displacement of 15 inches. Thus the total displacement in climbing a flight of stairs is 300 inches (= 20 steps x 15 inches per step).

Displacement = 300 inches = 25 feet = 7.62 m (1 foot = 0.3048 meters).

Let us assume it takes about 2 seconds per step while climbing the stairs at an easy pace. Total time to climb 20 steps is 40 seconds.

Thus, the power consumed in climbing the stairs = 70 x 10 x 7.62/40 W = 133.35 W 

Since 1 hp = 746 W, 

The power consumed = 133.35/746 = 0.18 hp (approximately).

Let us assume that we are about 3 times faster when running up a flight of stairs, then the time taken to climb the stairs will be one-third or, will be about 13.33 seconds.

The power consumed in running up the stairs = 3 x power consumed while walking up 

= 3 x 133.35 = 400 W = 0.54 hp (approximately).

In comparison, a horse has a mass about 10 times as much as an adult human being, thus the power consumed would be 10 times more. A horse will use 1.8 hp to climb a flight of stairs and will use 5.4 hp to run up the flight.

Now, 1 cream-filled oreo cookie has 50 calories, each of which has 4184 joules of energy. Total energy contained in one cream-filled oreo cookie = 50 x 4184 J = 209,200 J.

Energy is the power generation (or consumption) over a given time period. That is,

energy = power x time

Using the example calculations we just did, it takes 40 seconds to climb a flight of stairs and the power consumed is 133.35 W. Thus, the energy expense in climbing a flight of stairs is:

energy = 133.35 W x 40 sec = 5334 J

Thus, the number of flights of stairs one can climb on one oreo cookie is given as:

Number of flight of stairs = energy available/energy consumed in one flight 

= 209,200/5334 = 39.22 flights = 39.22 x 20 steps = 784.4 steps x 15 inches per step = 11,766 inches = 298.85 meter = 0.3 km = 0.186 miles. 

(you can convert between different length measures assuming, 1 mile = 1.609 km, 1 km = 1000 m, 1 m = 39.37 inches, etc.).

Thus, one can climb 11,766 steps or about 300 m or about 0.3 km or about 0.186 miles on one cream-filled oreo cookie. 

Hope this helps. 

How would you summarize The Story of My Life?

Helen Keller's autobiography, The Story of My Life, covers her life from birth until her second year of college. In it, Helen explained her family background, how she lost her sight and hearing, and how she learned to communicate. She also detailed her education, travels, friends, and hobbies.

Helen Keller was born in Alabama in 1880. She was bright as a baby and young toddler. Shortly before her second birthday, she became extremely ill. She eventually recovered, but her illness caused her to be deaf and blind. For years, Helen lived in a silent world of darkness. She yearned to communicate, but she could not and became frustrated. Finally, her parents sought help. They arranged for a teacher to come help Helen. That teacher was Miss Sullivan. Miss Sullivan worked with determination to help Helen learn to communicate. Eventually, Helen had a breakthrough and learned the connection between words and objects. This was the beginning of Helen Keller's journey of lifelong learning.

Eventually, Helen went to school and then college. She traveled all over the country and to Canada. She made friends with many famous people, such as Alexander Graham Bell and Mark Twain. Helen enjoyed reading, being in nature, and sailing. At the end of the book, Helen credited her friends for making her life incredible:

Thus it is that my friends have made the story of my life. In a thousand ways they have turned my limitations into beautiful privileges, and enabled me to walk serene and happy in the shadow cast by my deprivation (Chapter XXIII).

In the short story, "The Open Window," why does Mrs. Sappleton call Mr. Nuttel 'a most extraordinary man'?

When Mrs. Sappleton calls Mr. Nuttel  “A most extraordinary man”, she does not mean it as a compliment.  In fact, she hardly knows the man. 

Mr. Nuttel has been told by his doctor that he needs some rest and relaxation, so his sister convinces him to spend some time at a rectory in the country. His sister knows that he will become a hermit in the country if he doesn’t know anyone, so she writes him a letter of introduction to people she has met, but with whom he is not acquainted.  

Mrs. Sappleton is not ready to receive visitors yet, so her niece, Vera, entertains Mr. Nuttel until her aunt arrives.  While waiting for the aunt, Vera tells Mr. Nuttel about a tragedy that happened three years before on that very day. Mrs. Sappleton’s husband and two brothers had gone out hunting with their faithful dog and never returned.  They would come in from a hunting expedition through the window, and so Mrs. Sappleton left the window open in hopes that they would return that day.

When Mrs. Sappleton arrives, she tells Mr. Nuttel that she is waiting for her husband and brothers to arrive and hopes that the open window doesn’t bother him.   Mr. Nuttel is very uncomfortable with this topic, so he tries to change the subject. 

“The doctors agree in ordering me complete rest, an absence of mental excitement, and avoidance of anything in the nature of violent physical exercise” (Saki 2).

He continues to elaborate on his physical maladies, but Mrs. Sappleton is half-listening to his ailments because her eyes keep going to the window.  Finally, just as the sun is beginning to set, Mr. Nuttel sees three figures walking across the lawn carrying guns over their shoulders.  Mr. Nuttel grabs his coat, hat, and walking stick and runs out of the house.

 Mrs. Sappleton doesn’t understand.  By “extraordinary” she means “strange.”  She tells her husband, who is very much alive, Mr. Nuttel

“…could only talk about his illnesses and dashed off without a word of goodbye or apology when you arrived.  One would think he had seen a ghost.” (Saki 3).

No one knows that Vera told Mr. Nuttel a fantastic tale, and Mr. Nuttel felt he had seen a ghost.

My copy of the story is from the internet so the pages may not coincide with your copy, but they should be close.

Why did the War of 1812 create a need for domestic products?

During the War of 1812, there was an increased need for products made in the United States. A major reason for this had to do with the British strategy in the War of 1812. One of Britain’s biggest strengths was its navy. As part of its strategy for fighting the war, the British used its navy to blockade the American coast facing the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. This made it much more difficult for us to get products into our country from other countries. Additionally, the attacks on our shipping in international waters also restricted our ability to get products both before and during the war. As a result, we needed to produce more products in our businesses and in our factories.

We did engage the British in some naval battles in the War of 1812. We used frigates and privateers to take on the British navy. However, for the most part, the British were successful in restricting the flow of supplies into the United States. Our trade was significantly impacted by the naval blockade. Thus, we needed our factories to produce more products to try to meet our needs.

In Shooting an Elephant, in the second paragraph, what is suggested by the qualifiers “and secretly, of course” and “if you can catch him...

A qualifier is a word or phrase the puts limitations on a statement. Instead of saying something is absolutely true or not true, a qualifier will indicate a possible exception or a specification. The first qualifier, “and secretly, of course” comes in the middle of a sentence where Orwell admits that he is on the side of the Burmese and against the oppressors, even though the oppressors are the ones he is working for. He qualifies by saying “and secretly, of course,” to indicate that at the time, he does not let it be known- to either those he works for or those he aids in oppressing- where his true sympathies lie. To do so probably would have been dangerous for him or, at the very least, would have made it more difficult to do his job. The qualifier lets readers in on his secret and shows that, at the time, he was hiding his true feelings because he really didn’t have much of a choice.

Later, in the same paragraph, Orwell discusses his conflicting feelings about his job as an officer in Burma. He claims that

feelings like these are normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty.

This last phrase, “if you can catch him off duty,” is kind of a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that most people working for an imperialist empire feel similar to the way Orwell feels but, like him, they keep their feelings to themselves. The qualifier “if you can catch him off duty” suggests, literally, that those in Orwell’s situation will be honest only when they are off the job, but probably he is being sarcastic in this remark. He knows that they feel the same conflicted feelings but would not likely admit to it aloud.

Both of these qualifiers show the hypocrisy of imperialism and the difficult situation in which those working for an imperialist government find themselves. Though they know the system for which they are working is wrong, they do not feel they are in a position to speak out against it. Instead, they have to keep their objections quietly to themselves until, like Orwell, they are able to “get out of the job.”

How does the relationship between the Capulet and Montague families impact the servants in Romeo and Juliet?

The servants are involved in the feud because it affects the honor of their families.

Shakespeare begins the play by demonstrating to us that even the lowest members of the Montague and Capulet families are affected by the feud.  In the first scene, two Capulet servants, Sampson and Gregory, are ready to fight servants of the Montague house just because they are Capulets and those men are Montagues.

SAMPSON

I strike quickly, being moved.

GREGORY

But thou art not quickly moved to strike.

SAMPSON

A dog of the house of Montague moves me.

GREGORY

To move is to stir; and to be valiant is to stand:
therefore, if thou art moved, thou runn'st away. (Act 1, Scene 1)

Abraham and Balthasar of the Montague clan are the dogs that move Sampson.  The infamous thumbing of the nose insult causes a swordfight to break out between the two groups.  Soon Benvolio tries to break up the fight, but Tybalt makes it worse.  Even the Lords Montague and Capulet get involved.

CAPULET

My sword, I say! Old Montague is come,
And flourishes his blade in spite of me.

Enter MONTAGUE and LADY MONTAGUE

MONTAGUE

Thou villain Capulet,--Hold me not, let me go. (Act 1, Scene 1)

The prince is so annoyed that the family feud is spewing into the streets that he makes a proclamation punishing anyone who gets involved with death.  He leaves scolding Lord Capulet and telling Montague he will lecture him later.

The feud between the Montagues and Capulets is so bad that Tybalt gets angry enough to start a fight when he sees Romeo, Lord Montague’s son, at his cousin Juliet Capulet’s ball.  Lord Capulet tells him to leave off because a fight would cause a stir among the guests.  However, you can be sure he would not be happy to see his daughter making eyes at a young Montague.

A servant would feel himself honor-bound in those days to defend his house.  This is why the servants of the house of Montague are so ready to fight the servants of the house of Capulet.  They insult each other and spoil for a fight because they feel just as involved in the feud as actual family members.

Are the only short term causes to World War 1 the assassination and the alliance system?

In a sense, there were only two short term causes that caused the outbreak of World War I. Yet, only looking at the assassination, and the Triple Entente and Alliance will not fully explain the short term causes. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a result of high tensions in the area. Serbia was very interested in gaining independence and freedom from Austria/Hungary, they wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina to join with them to create the Slavic Union. When Austria/Hungary annexed both countries, it caused tensions to rise. Serbian nationalists were appalled by these actions and felt Austria/Hungary was trying to control them.

As for the alliances, it was not as simple as the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. There were also secret alliances and support systems that came into play as the countries went to war. The Ottoman Empire and Germany secretly allied themselves, while Russia told Serbia they would support them against Austria. Also, the British promised Belgium that they would protect their neutrality. This meant if another country attacked Belgium, Britain would come to their aid. These alliances, although they seem small compared to the others, caused other countries to spring into action once war was declared.

Even though there may be only a few short term causes, they are just as important as what effected the war long term. All of these causes led to a devastating war and changed the dynamics of countries and their relationships across the globe. 

How do the imagery, figurative language, and diction in Chapter 3 contribute to the meaning of the work as a whole?

Most of Chapter Three is devoted to a description of the party where Nick first meets Gatsby. The dominant impression of the chapter is that, while the parties are full of activity and fun, they are also a bit empty; this impression extends to Gatsby himself, who we meet in the chapter, and who may be physically at the party, but emtionally is absent or aloof.

There are plenty of details in the chapter to reinforce this. One thinks of Nick's stumbling on the owl-eyed man in the library, who is amazed at the lengths to which Gatsby had gone to create the illusion of an intellectual life (he is incredulous that the books are "real"). Or the passage in which some of Gatsby's guests speculate on his past (he either "killed a man" or was a spy). Or there is the wonderful description of Gatsby's smile: "It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey."

Fitzgerald is able to establish this dominant impression right from the beginning of the chapter. Here is the first paragraph in its entirety:

There was music from my neighbor’s house through the summer nights. In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars. At high tide in the afternoon I watched his guests diving from the tower of his raft, or taking the sun on the hot sand of his beach while his two motor-boats slit the waters of the Sound, drawing aquaplanes over cataracts of foam. On week-ends his Rolls-Royce became an omnibus, bearing parties to and from the city between nine in the morning and long past midnight, while his station wagon scampered like a brisk yellow bug to meet all trains. And on Mondays eight servants, including an extra gardener, toiled all day with mops and scrubbing-brushes and hammers and garden-shears, repairing the ravages of the night before.”

Imagery: The passage is rich with sensory detail. We are drawn into the passage immediately by the faint sound of music; we can see the "men and girls" flitting at a distance in Gatsby's gardens at night; we watch the men diving, hear the motorboats on the water, or the comings and goings of his cars. The impression is, above all, one of great wealth, of course, but also of tremendous activity. Gatsby's house seems less a residence than a resort.

Figurative language: Fitzgerald uses similes in the passage to help reinforce his dominant impression of the party. For example, he describes the "men and girls" as "like moths" flitting between the "whisperings, champagne and the stars." The people are ephemeral, coming and going without purpose, attracted to metaphorical "light" of champagne and the stars. The mood is at once mysterious and tantalizing. The word "moth" suggests the warm summer nights of Gatsby's parties; his gardens are "blue," lit subtly and seen from a distance. It is like we are seeing a dream.

Diction: Considering Fitzgerald's word choice reveals a kind of poetic compactness to his prose. There is a musicality to his diction that reinforces the sensory details he describes. For example, when he talks about how Gatsby's motorboats draw aquaplanes "over cataracts of foam," the word "cataracts" both suggests the visual image of rushing water and the roar of a large waterfall; the staccato nature of the word's pronunciation is congruent to the sound of the boats going by. It is a noisy word used to describe a noisy scene. A similar point can be made about his use of the verb "scamper" to describe the travels of his station wagon to and from the train station: "scampering" is a kind of playful running about, which reinforces the impression of vacant activity Fitzgerald is trying convey in the paragraph.

Like Gatsby himself, or his love for Daisy, the party is a kind of hollow exercise; it is like a desire that seems always just out of reach, and even if it could be had, would prove unsatisfying.

What is the difference between the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Truth?

In George Orwell's 1984, there are four different ministries that function as the different branches of government.  They are the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Plenty.  

Despite their harmonious names, the names of each ministry are quite ironic, because they actually function in the complete opposite way from what their names imply.  

The Ministry of Truth is where Winston Smith works.  Supposedly, Winston and his branch of government are in charge of checking the historical accuracy of things; however, that is not what the Ministry of Truth does.  The Ministry of Truth is in charge of Big Brother's propaganda machine.  Winston is constantly changing the official records of things, so that they can better reflect the Party's current stance.  The Ministry of Truth is in charge of spreading lies.  

The Ministry of Love is equally ironic.  It's supposed to be in charge of law and order.  In some ways it is.  The Ministry of Love maintains the thought police and makes sure that nobody even considers thinking a bad thing against Big Brother.  But the Ministry of Love's actions are anything but loving.  In order to have people follow the rules, the Ministry of Love uses fear mongering and torture to keep citizens in line.  

Evaluate the integral by making the given substitution.

You need to use the following substitution , such that:

Replacing back  for u yields:

Hence, evaluating the indefinite integral, yields

Why does Major sing "Beasts of England" to the animals in Animal Farm?

Major sings "Beasts of England" and teaches it to the other animals for a few reasons. The song brings together the animals in a communal activity, singing, but the song also instills a message of revolution in those who sing. In many historical revolutions, songs served to simplify and spread revolutionary messages to the masses. Rather than sitting and teaching everyone theory, history, and philosophy that might underpin the revolution, songs are a way of uniting people through the act of singing and teaching them points that are easy to understand. 

In Animal Farm, "Beasts of England" also connects the animals with an old history of animals who struggled and labored long ago. Major explains to the other animals that the song was "sung by the animals of long ago and... lost to memory for generations." The animals adopt it as a song symbolizing their freedom at first. They sing it after the Battle of Cowshed and they sing it to themselves after the Revolution. 

What is Maniac doing when the older gentleman approaches him?

On a hot August day, Maniac Magee was with his friends in the East End trying to cool off.  Someone had "wrench[ed] off the cap" of the fire hydrant, and water was spraying everywhere.  Maniac and other kids were dancing and playing in the mighty flow of the water from the hydrant, trying to cool off. Maniac would step in front of the strong stream and let it push him.  Suddenly, Maniac heard a voice.  He saw an older man approaching him.  This man was so old that his "white hair curled around his ears."  This man called Maniac "whitey" and told him to leave the East End.  The man told Maniac to go back to live with people who were like him.  In the East End, almost everyone was black. In the West End, almost everyone was white.  This man wanted Maniac to go move to the West End.

When Brutus says of Caesar, "I know no personal cause to spurn at him" and claims to be reluctant to kill him," how do we know that he is sincere?

We have several reasons for assuming that Brutus is sincere when he shows reluctance to participate in killing Caesar and that he is sincere in saying that he knows of no personal cause to spurn at him.

• Brutus is a sincere man. He has a reputation for integrity, and we feel his sincerity in everything he says. We do not question his sincerity in his private thoughts. After all, he is talking to himself. Why should he be trying to deceive himself?


• Brutus demonstrates his reluctance to get involved in the assassination by taking such a long time to think about it. He is agonizing over the question of what to do. It is because he has "no personal cause" that it is so hard for him to decide. It is because he has "no personal cause" that the conspirators want to recruit him. They are thinking about how the Roman people will react to Caesar's killing. Brutus can lend legitimacy to the assassination and also lend legitimacy to the new government they intend to establish.


• Brutus and Caesar are good friends. Brutus could not be harmed if Caesar acquired more power but could only benefit. Cassius, who is never concerned about anyone but himself, observes: "Caesar doth bear me hard, but he loves Brutus. / If I were Brutus now, and he were Cassius, / He should not humor me." Cassius is saying, in effect, that Brutus has "no personal cause" to act against Caesar. This is why Cassius, practically in the same breath, says that he will deliver forged letters to Brutus' home "...all tending to the great opinion / That Rome holds of his name..." Cassius hopes to appeal to Brutus' patriotism and family pride in order to sway him in favor of the conspiracy.


• Antony, who was Brutus' enemy, speaks highly of him at the end.

This was the noblest Roman of them all.
All the conspirators, save only he,
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “This was a man!”  
Act 5, Scene 5

How would one describe the house in "The Listeners" and the situation around it?

I'll start with the basic situation. A man on a horse has arrived at a lone house because he promised that he would. Readers don't know why he promised anything. It is night when he arrives at the house, and he knocks on the door several times. There is no answer at all. It's possible that everybody is asleep. It's possible that nobody is home. It's possible that everybody in the house is dead, and their ghosts are watching the man knock. Regardless, since nobody welcomes the visitor, he leaves.

The house itself isn't described in detail, but some key features are mentioned in the poem. Readers are told that the house is a "lone house." That tells me that the house is not in some kind of city, town, or neighborhood. Line four also tells readers that the house is in or near some kind of forest.

I believe that the house is a two-story house. I think that for two reasons. First, the man is able to see stairs that empty into a hall.

Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,   

   That goes down to the empty hall.

I do not know how the man is capable of seeing that far into a dark house, but he can. Second, I think the house is a two-story house because readers are told that the house has a "turret." I suppose that a turret could be on a one-story house, but I have never seen that before. A turret makes me picture the house like an old castle, but the design feature gained popularity again during the Victorian era. I've linked to a picture of what I believe the house could look like.

A final specific detail about the house itself is that it is likely covered in some kind of leafy, creeping vine. Readers are told that the windows are "leaf-fringed."

No head from the leaf-fringed sill 

Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes. 

That means some kind of plant life is growing all around the windows.

Do the unrealistic elements in Beowulf compromise its value as a literary work?

According the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, an epic is "a story about a hero or about exciting events or adventures." The dictionary also states that an epic often extends beyond the usual or ordinary. Some other words the dictionary notes about the word are: great, large, impressive, and legendary. 

Beowulf is fiction, and should be read in such a way. Therefore, its unrealistic elements played throughout the characters, settings, and events don't compromise its value as an excellent piece of literature. The epic's survival speaks for itself. Even without an author, the classic poem has survived since the years 500-1100. It is still read today in many classrooms around the world. 

The fact that the characters in Beowulf were formed around characteristics of Scandinavian and Celtic people also furthers the point that this type of story was one that would likely entertain readers with its larger-than-life characters, unfeasible battle halls, and enchanted weapons. The story has been passed down for many years, was eventually written, and was adapted into many film versions. The exaggerated tale expressed in the long epic is probably as popular as it is today because of its unrealistic elements. 

What is the concept of the Great Divergence?

The "Great Divergence" is a phrase used by economic historian Kenneth Pomeranz to describe the process by which industry first developed in Western Europe as opposed to China and East Asia. This development had widespread and long-lasting consequences, of course. Pomeranz sees a basic similarity between the two regions--there was seemingly no reason, on the face of it, why things should have happened the way that they did. Some of the cultural, material, and economic circumstances often cited as the reasons industry developed in Europe also, according to Pomeranz, in China and Japan in the seventeenth century or so. Pomeranz explains the "Great Divergence" between these two reasons as a consequence of a few factors. One was that Western Europe, especially England, was richer in some of the raw materials needed for industrial growth than East Asia. This was especially true of coal. Europe also had virtually unrestricted access to markets in the Americas for most of the eighteenth century, and this both created an almost constant demand for manufactures, but provided new crops which enabled Europe, in Pomeranz's words, to "escape a long-standing pattern in which all growth placed significant incremental demands on the land." Production of textiles in Asia, in the meantime, were stifled by different patterns in growth, lack of new markets, and especially by the relative lack of energy. Thus the "Great Divergence" occurred, as Europe's ability to produce boomed, and that of East Asia became stagnant in comparison. 

Who are the characters in "The Pit and the Pendulum"? And what are the key events that take place?

There is only one main character in The Pit and the Pendulum: the narrator. However, despite the fact that he is the main character, we know next to nothing about him. For more discussion on him, I have provided a link. There are some other people mentioned in passing such as the "black-robed judges,"  the people who carried him away from his sentencing, the inquisitorial agents, and the only named character: General Lasalle of the French army who inadvertently saves the narrator at the end of the story. 

As for the key events:

• The narrator's sentencing


• His exploration of the cell


• His finding the pit


• The lights coming on to reveal what the cell looks like


• The narrator waking up to find that he is tied down and the pendulum is slowly coming down on him


• His escape from the restraints and the pendulum, and the paintings on the wall changing


• The walls slowly closing in on him


• General Lasalle stopping everything and inadvertently saving the narrator

That is just the bare skeleton of the story. For a fuller summary, I have provided a link.

What were two major changes in British policy toward the colonies that led to the Revolution?

There were two major changes in British policies that led to the Revolutionary War. One change was the British decision to begin to enforce some of the trade policies that they had generally ignored. The British often looked the other way when the colonists smuggled items into the colonies. They also looked the other way when the colonists used the ships of other countries instead of using British ships. When the British passed the Sugar Act, it lowered the tax on molasses. This eventually reduced colonial trade with the French West Indies and some other places, harming the economy of the colonies. The British navy began to enforce the Sugar Act much more closely than they had enforced other trade restrictions in past. The British wanted to reduce smuggling. If the colonists bought their molasses from Great Britain, this would raise more money for the British, even though the tax on molasses was lowered. The British also placed soldiers in the colonies to help with the enforcement of some of the laws. The colonists weren’t happy with these developments.

The other change the British made was to create new taxes that the colonists had to pay. The colonies were becoming more expensive to run, and the British wanted the colonists to share in the cost of running the colonies. The British believed the colonies were benefitting from British rule, and therefore they should share in some of the cost of running the colonies. The Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts were two taxes passed by the British. The colonists objected to these taxes because they didn’t have representatives in Parliament that could speak about and vote on these proposed taxes. The taxes went into effect, and the colonists began to protest them. They refused to buy products from British merchants. This hurt the merchants in Britain who saw their sales with the colonies decrease.

When the British decided to crack down on smuggling and when they passed new tax laws without the colonists having representatives in Parliament that could discuss these proposed ideas, the road to independence began to be paved.

In Act II Scene 2 of Hamlet in the passage beginning "is it not monstrous..." which is not included in the passage: litotes, alliteration,...

There are no examples of chiasmus (reversing the order of words in identical phrases) in Hamlet's soliloquy at the end of Act II, Scene 2. There is an example of chiasmus earlier in the scene, when Polonius says:

That we find out the cause of this effect
Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
For this effect defective comes by cause.

In fact, Polonius is much given to the use of chiasmus, which can lead to rather bloated, long-winded, bombastic speeches throughout the play. But Shakespeare does not use this device in Hamlet's speech. As for the other devices mentioned in the question, one example of litotes in Hamlet's soliloquy is "for it cannot be/But I am pigeon-liver'd and lack gall." We see alliteration in "...by the very cunning of the scene/Been struck so to the soul..." Finally, Hamlet uses metaphorical language when he calls himself a "scullion," an "ass," and the King a "slave." So the only choice not included in the soliloquy is chiasmus.

Why is the reliability of church historian Eusebius' The Life of Constantine doubted and how does the tone of the work affect that doubt?

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265 – 339/340 AD) is sometimes called "the father of church history". In addition to his Life of Constantine, he also wrote the Ecclesiastical History, which is the basis for much of our understanding of the development of Christianity leading up to the Council of Nicaea, and several other works of church history, biblical criticism, and theology. He is generally admired for his industriousness in consulting original documents and eyewitnesses where possible, citing sources, and attempting to be accurate and comprehensive. In his Life of Constantine, he was also an eyewitness to some of the events described and personally acquainted with many of the people he mentions. Nonetheless, this work has certain elements which make it unreliable by the standards of modern scholarship.

The first element is tone, which is that of a panegyric. As with much of ancient biography, the point of this Life was not that of pure factual accuracy but of telling the story of a moral exemplar to praise how a king ought to behave. Contributing to this adulatory tone is that the Life is presented as showing how Constantine fulfilled a divine plan for establishing a monarch as an earthly tool of his divine will, a philosophy that came to be known in the Greek east as "Caesaropapism". Eusebius omits many episodes that are unflattering to Constantine and glosses over others to cast Constantine in a favorable light. He misrepresents Licinius as worse than he actually was to justify Constantine's feud with him. Eusebius also at times inflates his own importance and exaggerates his level of personal contact with Constantine. 

How does Steinbeck create sympathy for Crooks in Of Mice and Men?

Steinbeck shows sympathy for the character of Crooks in Of Mice and Men in a variety of ways. Crooks is described by the other ranch hands as being the only black man at the ranch. The racial slurs of that particular time, the "n" word, is applied to him by the other workers at the ranch. It's interesting that despite many of the workers being migrant workers and relatively transient, they all still look down upon him as being lesser than they are solely due to the color of his skin. 

When Lennie approaches Crooks in his room, Crooks initially shies away from having any contact with him.

Crooks scowled, but Lennie's disarming smile defeated him. "Come on in and set a while," Crooks said. "'Long as you won't get out and leave me alone, you might as well set down." His tone was a little more friendly. (68)

Crooks has been alone for so long that he doesn't really know how to interact with others in a normal way. Lennie's bashful attempts to interact with him are rebuffed and Crooks even begins to mess with Lennie's head in a cruel way, suggesting that Lennie won't be able to depend on George forever. Crooks' isolation is reinforced when he tells his personal history. 

"I was born right here in Southern California. My old man had a chicken ranch, ‘bout ten acres. The white kids come to play at our place, an’ sometimes I went to play with them, and some of them was pretty nice. My ‘ol man didn’t like that. I never knew till long later why he didn’t like that. But I know now." He hesitated, and when he spoke again his voice was softer. "There wasn’t another colored family for miles around. And now there ain’t a colored man on this ranch an’ there’s jus’ one family in Soledad. (69)

Crooks has finally realized how others view him - as a black man, as lesser. Since there aren't any other people like him on the ranch, he's truly alone - far more alone than any other character shown in the text. 

Discuss writing a paper that has validity. Cover fact and fiction, supporting evidence, bias, and logic.

A paper that has validity must be credible, which means convincing and believable. The key to achieving this lies in backing up or illustrating your ideas with quotes and examples (supporting evidence). For example, if you want to prove in an English paper that a character in a novel is evil, you need to go back to the text and find quotes or examples that show this character's evil nature. Likewise, if you are asked to research and write about ways the food industry encourages obesity, you have to find specific examples of what the food industry does. It's not enough to say that food conglomerates stuff calories into junk food. Instead, you have to find examples of specific types of junk food and discuss how and why they are so caloric. In short, to write a valid paper, you must back up every statement you make with a quote or evidence that convinces your reader that what you say is true or at least convincing enough to be worth considering.

To produce a valid or persuasive paper, you also need to avoid biased sources and to be aware of your own possible biases. If you are biased, you might throw out evidence that contradicts what you already think you know and not offer a balanced argument. This is poor scholarship. A valid paper admits the strengths of its opponents and then argues against them. It does not include information that is not factual or that has been distorted in some way to make a point. For example, if you were quoting a source, you would not ellipse (leave out) words that were important to understanding what the author really meant. You would also use sources that any educated person would consider authoritative and unbiased, such as The New York Times or a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

A good paper is logically coherent, meaning the evidence you have gathered actually supports the points you are trying to make. In a valid paper, you point out any logical inconsistencies  (fallacies) in the arguments your sources make. For example, one of your sources might attack a person rather than an idea, which is called making an ad hominem argument. A classic example of this would be to say we should not build a strong highway system because Hitler did. Hitler was clearly a terrible person, but the German highway system was one of his few good ideas. 

Finally, we come to fact and fiction. You clearly want your papers to contain fact, not fiction, but this speaks as well to another issue. A convincing paper contains both logos (facts and statistics) and pathos (true stories). Very few people will read a paper this is simply a pile of facts, such as a list of average temperatures over the past 60 years. Statistics alone don't make an argument. Every paper needs true stories that illustrate what their facts mean in people's lives. At the same time, you don't want your paper to be all story: this is like serving a meal of nothing but dessert. A reader will trust much more in your paper's validity only if it includes ample servings of  the "protein and vitamins" that facts provide. 

In short, a valid paper uses believable sources, uses many quotes and examples to back up its ideas, balances facts with true stories to illustrate its points, works to use unbiased sources and points out the logical fallacies it finds in arguments. 

In The Scarlet Letter, what reasons are given for Hester staying in Boston?

In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne chooses to stay in Boston out of attachment to the life-changing events that had happened there and to the person involved in them--the man who desecrated her marriage but was not punished with adultery charges.

The narrator describes this decision as "marvelous" in that there was absolutely no laws or stipulations of her punishment that forced her to remain there; it was completely a matter of free will. Hester has every opportunity to leave and is,

"free to return to her birthplace, or to any other European land, and there hide her character and identity under a new exterior, as completely as if emerging into another state of being."

Despite this, she does not run from her sin or from her identity; her sin, in fact, seems to give her "a new birth" which commits the land to her as a "life-long home." 

Meanwhile, she sees the man she cheated with as being connected to her in

"a union, that, unrecognized on earth, would bring them together before the bar of final judgement, and make that their marriage-alter."

The narrator describes this motive--Hester's desire to be weighed and judged by God with this "tempter of souls"--as "half a truth, and half a self-delusion." 

Overall, Hester decides that the place where she committed her greatest sin must be the place where she carries out her "earthly punishment." Therefore, she settles into "a small thatched cottage" and prepares to endure a great deal of ostracism from the community. 

What appears to happen to the moon as it goes through its cycles?

The moon appears to change shape or get lighter and darker as it passes through its cyclic monthly phases. However, the moon does not actually produce any light of its own or ever change shape. The moon appears light because it reflects light from the sun. The moon appears to be lighter or darker at different times of the month because of the relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth. The moon orbits, or revolves, around the Earth. As the moon orbits the Earth, it reflects different amounts of light due to the angle at which it receives sunlight. For example, a “new moon” is when the moon appears completely dark. During a new moon, the moon is between the earth and the sun. Therefore, during a new moon, the side of the moon that is facing the Earth does not reflect any sunlight. Waning is a term that is used to describe the moon’s reflected light decreasing. Waxing is the term used to describe when the moon’s reflected light increases.

The moon chart displays each of the moon’s monthly phases. This diagram also depicts the relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth during each phase of the moon.

What is the Blue Vein Society in The Wife of His Youth?

In Charles Chesnutt's story "The Wife of His Youth," written in 1898, the issue of race is central to the story. The protagonist, Mr. Ryder, is a light-complexioned African-American man who belongs to a society known informally as the Blue Vein Society. They are called this because people say that only those individuals whose skin is light enough to see their blue veins are allowed into the society. This then suggests that African-Americans who have darker complexions would not be allowed entry. The ideal the society aspired to was a lighter skinned, more educated, cultured African-American individual, therefore they excluded darker skinned people. In writing about such a society, Chesnutt brings attention to the challenges of African-Americans after the Civil War and the end of slavery--how they fit into society, how they were treated, and the perception of light and dark skinned individuals.

Who were the real winners of the Glorious Revolution?

The most obvious winners of the Glorious Revolution would be William of Orange and his wife Mary, who came to England to take the throne vacated by James II amid the revolution. The real winners, however, were the men who controlled Parliament--mostly landed gentry, wealthy merchants, and aristocrats. These men imposed serious limitations on the powers of the King in the form of a Bill of Rights that William had to sign as a condition of assuming power. The King was forced to regularly convene Parliament, to pass no taxes without its consent, and to respect other fundamental civil liberties. Parliament duly placed England on a path toward developing a modern commercial economy that benefited many of the promoters of the Revolution. Historian Steve Pincus writes in his book 1688 that the Glorious Revolution "created a new kind of modern state," one which, unlike the French-style kingdom envisioned by James II, "encouraged political participation rather than absolutism", featured "religious tolerance rather than Catholicizing," and "was devoted to promoting English manufactures rather than landed empires" (7). At least this was what the revolutionaries envisioned.

If the people who promoted these things were the "winners," the "losers," along with James II and his followers, were most emphatically British Catholics, who suffered a great deal of discrimination in the aftermath of the Revolution. But most modern historians would argue that the leaders of Parliament were the winners of the Glorious Revolution. 

What is George Balls advice concerning an appropriate American policy towards Vietnam?

With the advantage of hindsight, Undersecretary of State George Ball seemed like a voice of reason among war hawks in Washington, D.C. in the summer of 1965. The United States had a relatively small number of troops committed to the civil war in Vietnam at the time. Those troops were mostly utilized in an advisory role. George Ball cautions President Johnson against escalation in Vietnam. His feeling is that the American military is not equipped to fight a war against guerilla fighters in a foreign jungle. He believes that a full commitment by American troops would result in casualties that would be hard to accept. He is also not at all convinced that the United States would realize its objectives despite the loss of American soldiers.

Ball recommended that the United States should not commit more troops to Vietnam. For the troops that were in place, their combat role should be seriously restricted as to avoid casualties that would pressure escalation. Ball also recommends that President Johnson should negotiate an escape from the war in a way that avoids humiliation.

Where do Jem and Dill go in chapter 6 of To Kill a Mockingbird?

In chapter 6 of To Kill a Mockingbird, Dill and Jem decide to boldly enter the Radley yard.  They have been extremely curious about Boo for awhile, but they yearn to learn more.  They plan to peek in the windows in hopes of catching a glimpse of Boo.  Scout is hesitant about their decision, but she reluctantly comes along.  She goes "faster when [she sees] Jem far ahead beckoning in the moonlight."

The three children sneak into the Radley yard.  Once they reach the porch, Scout and Jem hoist Dill up.  He tries to peer through the window, but all he can see is the cloth from the curtains.  They continue to sneak around the house until Scout notices a shadow.  It is Mr. Radley, and the children run off.  They escape through the back fence as Mr. Radley shoots a gun into the air.

Is South Africa a nation-state, a multinational state or a multi-state nation?

South Africa is definitely a multinational state.  To understand why this is, we have to understand how the terms “nation” and “state” are used in social sciences disciplines like political science and human geography.

In everyday usage, people use the term “nation” to mean a country.  In this usage, South Africa would be a nation.  However, this is not how social scientists use the term.  To social scientists, a “nation” is essentially an ethnic group.  It is a group of people who share a common identity that is based on something like religion or culture.  It is not a political entity the way that a country is.

When social scientists want to talk about countries, they usually use the term “state.”  A state, in this usage, is the same thing as a country.  This means that South Africa is a state because it has defined boundaries and a government that is sovereign within those boundaries.

Once we know these definitions, we can see that South Africa cannot be a multi-state nation.  This is because South Africa is a state and not a nation.  Using these definitions, along with what we know about South Africa’s demographics, we can also say that South Africa is not a nation-state.  A nation-state is a state like Japan where essentially the whole population of the state belongs to the same nation.  We know that South Africa is home to many different ethnic groups/nations, which means that it cannot be a nation-state.  Instead, it is a multinational state.  It is a state in which people of many different nations live. 

What is ominous about Shylock's repeating that Antonio is a good man and "sufficient"?

It is important to consider the context of the words you reference. The scene has just opened upon Shylock and Bassanio, who is approaching Shylock for a bond on Antonio's good credit. Shylock gives the impression that he is considering making the loan, but before making any commitment, he pauses, building up suspense and anxiety in Bassanio, who finally says,

May you stead me? Will you pleasure me? / Shall I know your answer?

In fact, Bassanio is so roiled that he takes a statement as a question:

Shylock: Antonio is a good man.

Bassanio: Have you heard any imputation to the contrary?

Then, in a circuitous fashion, Shylock muses on the specific form that Antonio's wealth takes. He makes it clear that "good" for him is synonymous with "able to pay when the bond comes to term." The term "sufficient" gains its ominous tone from the uncertain state of Antonio's wealth, which takes the form of trade goods currently being transported between ports. Shylock ponders the number of ways these goods can be lost:

But ships are boards, sailors but men; there be  land-rats and water-rats, water thieves and land-thieves, I mean pirates, and then there is the peril of waters, winds, and rocks.

After cataloging this potential pit-falls, Shylock then confirms the bond:

The man is notwithstanding sufficient.

The movement of his speech from affirmation, to measured skepticism, to affirmation on uncertain credit suggests that Shylock is rendering this bond for reasons other than benign charity. The ominous tone is a result of the uncertainty of Antonio's wealth being converted from trade goods into currency.

Explain the reactivity of the noble gases in terms of valence electrons.

Valence electrons are the electrons in the outer shell of an atom and are the ones that participate in chemical bonding. Noble gases are elements, characterized by fully filled outer shells. They form group 18 of the periodic table of elements. Noble gases include helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. These elements have the maximum number of valence electrons the outer shell can hold. For example helium has an atomic number of 2 and electronic configuration of 1s2. There are no free electrons and there is no need to gain, lose or share electrons, as the outer shell is fully filled. Similarly, neon has an electronic configuration of 1s2, 2s2, 2p6. Since the outer orbitals are fully filled, noble gases do not react and are mostly chemically inert. In comparison, metals and non-metals react and participate in chemical reactions to completely fill their outer shells. 

Hope this helps. 

Write a quotient of two cube roots so that the answer when simplified is 3a^2/4b^3?

One way to do this would simply be to:  cube both numerator and denominator.  Therefore when you take the cube root of each you will have this answer.

For example:  

Therefore:  3a^2 all cubed would be equivalent to:

Next:  4b^3 all cubed would be equivalent to:

Now just write each expression as the cube root in the numerator and denominator respectively as:

What were some superstitious beliefs about women in Shakespeare's time?

A lot of superstitions regarding women in Shakespeare's day had to do with social deviancy and witchcraft. Unmarried women, especially those who were old, were often suspected of being witches. There were very few occupations available to women in Elizabethan England outside of being a wife and mother, so a woman who was not either was considered a little strange. Many women practiced folk healing to support themselves in the absence of a job or husband, and their herbal remedies were sometimes believed to be magical spells or proof of deals with the devil.

Women's reproductive biology had a lot of superstitions, as well. From the Medieval Period onward, a menstruating woman was believed to have a terrible influence about her. Folklore from around England and other parts of Europe dictated that a menstruating woman's touch would kill plants, prevent bread from rising, and cause all manner of food to spoil. At the same time, most Elizabethans were of the opinion that the menstrual cycle was both natural and healthy. The dominant theory of health in Shakespeare's time involved the Four Humors-- four fluids which circulated about the body and were in constant flux. Too much or too little of any one was bad for the health, and it was believed that menstruation was simply a woman's way of letting off a little excess blood every month.

With regards to Shakespeare's work, women were considered bad luck on the stage, and so women's roles in plays were acted by young boys. I suspect that the belief about women on stage being bad luck had far more to do with the social dynamics of the time than any superstition. In Shakespeare's time, women were believed to be inferior to men in all but one respect-- they could bear children. In anything else a woman did, she was not as good as a man, and this would have applied to the performing arts as well. Of course, theatre and acting did not have the air of luxury that they carry today. Actors were considered to be very low class people, and theatres were pits of moral degeneration. Sex workers often waited outside of theatres for a client to come by, and a woman on stage might have been taken as a sex worker. This could cause all sorts of social unrest, regardless of whether she actually was a sex worker or not. Though the Shakespearean theatre was a dirty place of generally low morals, I think Elizabethan people would still have been outraged to believe that a sex worker was performing on stage and receiving their money.

What are the advantages of space exploration?

Space exploration is the discovery and study of space and the various celestial bodies that it contains. It is typically done with the help of very powerful telescopes (on Earth and in space) and manned or (more commonly) unmanned missions. Telescopes allow us the visual exploration of space, while space vehicles allow us physical exploration (for things like material characterization).

There are a number of benefits to space exploration. Many commonly used inventions were developed as a spin-off of space exploration programs. Some examples include wireless tools, automated health monitors, and stronger, better materials. It also helps us understand what resources are available on other planets, meteors, etc., as we explore the possibility of harvesting such resources in the future. Space exploration has always motivated and inspired students to learn science. Another potential benefit of space exploration is the possibility of colonizing another planet, in case Earth is no longer usable. 

Hope this helps. 

How did the gift from Mary Warren work against Elizabeth Proctor?

Mary Warren gave her employer, Elizabeth Proctor, a "poppet" or doll that she made while she sat in court that day.  Mary Warren says, in Act Two,

I made a gift for you today, Goody Proctor.  I had to sit long hours in a chair, and passed the time with sewing [....].  We must all love each other now, Goody Proctor.

This gift seems to be a kind offering.  Mary Warren goes to bed, and John and Elizabeth continue to discuss Elizabeth's fears that Abigail will use the trials as a way to get rid of her and secure John for herself.  Soon, Cheever arrives with a warrant for Elizabeth's arrest: Abigail has indeed accused her.  He asks Elizabeth to hand over any poppets she keeps, and when he lifts the skirts of the doll and sees a needle stuck in its belly, his "eyes widen in astonished fear."  He says, that night, that Abigail Williams sat down for dinner at Reverend Parris's house and suddenly,

[...] without word nor warnin' she falls to the floor.  Like a struck beast, he says, and screamed a scream that a bull would weep to hear.  And he goes to save her, and, stuck two inches in the flesh of her belly, he draw a needle out.  And demandin' of her how she come to be so stabbed, she -- to Proctor now -- testify it were your wife's familiar spirit pushed it in.

Mary Warren soon reveals that Abigail sat beside her in court and watched her make the doll and push the needle in, for safe-keeping.  Proctor and Elizabeth now understand that Abigail has used this information to frame Elizabeth for witchcraft.  The poppet plus Abigail's testimony that Elizabeth sent her spirit out to push the needle into her belly, called spectral evidence, is enough to convict her.

Please provide 3 quotes from the novel To Kill a Mockingbird about Scout vs. society. The theme is: Judging others is dangerous as it results in...

When we judge other people, it is as if we are placing ourselves on a higher pedestal than others. It means that we think our way is the only "right" way and we start to believe we have a right to judge and to convict others of their faults or crimes. This way of thinking certainly can lead people to believe they have a right to bend social and legal rules that may actually disgrace who we are as humans. Such is the case in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and it is seen in the novel from Aunt Alexandra's tea parties, to children's superstitions; from the local school to neighborhood gossip; and from family dinner tables all the way to the county courthouse. Scout learns not to judge others from all of these situations, but here are at least three.

One of the first cases where Scout must understand not to judge others is when Jem invites Walter Cunningham home for lunch on her first day of school. Walter, who hardly ever eats as well, asks for the maple syrup. He pours it over his lunch and Scout is vocally beside herself. Calpurnia calls her into the kitchen to teach her a lesson. The scene goes as follows:

"She was furious, and when she was furious Calpurnia's grammar became erratic. . . When she squinted down at me the tiny lines around her eyes deepened. 'There's some folks who don't eat like us,' she whispered fiercely, 'but you ain't called on to contradict 'em at the table when they don't. That boy's yo' comp'ny and if he wants to eat up the table cloth you let him, you hear?'" (24).

Scout objects and tries to tell her he is just a Cunningham, as if she is better than Walter. Calpurnia sets her straight though and Scout is set on the path of learning not to judge others, especially if they are in her house. Little did she know she would have many more lessons to learn on the subject.

Another episode that teaches Scout not to discriminate others is when she meets Mr. Raymond outside of the courthouse during the trial. Mr. Raymond has a reputation as a drunk and having created mixed-race children. He helps Dill feel better after witnessing the cruel cross-examination of Tom Robinson by offering him a drink from his paper-bagged bottle. The drink turns out to be cola and Scout says the following:

"I had a feeling that I shouldn't be here listening to this sinful man who had mixed children and didn't care who knew it, but he was fascinating. I had never encountered a being who deliberately perpetrated fraud against himself. But why had he entrusted us with his deepest secret? I asked him why" (201).

Mr. Raymond goes on to explain that children understand why he does what he does. He even goes on to tell Dill and Scout to remember what they learn that day and basically not to accept the racist and social prejudices that society deals out on a daily basis. 

Finally, Scout learns not to judge those with disabilities, such as Boo Radley. At first the kids want to flush him out of his house because he's a mystery to them--like a ghost. But when Boo saves Scout and Jem from Mr. Ewell's attack on the night of the school festival, she meets him and discovers his humanity. She also overhears the sheriff, Heck Tate, tell Atticus (in not so many words) that the story will stand that Mr. Ewell fell on his knife in order to protect Boo Radley from suffering from all the attention he'd get. Boo Radley lived his life best with his family behind closed doors, not out in the public. Atticus finally understands why Mr. Tate wants to protect Boo:

"Atticus sat looking at the floor for a long time. Finally he raised his head. 'Scout,' he said, "Mr. Ewell fell on his knife. Can you possibly understand?'

Atticus looked like he needed cheering up. I ran to him and hugged him and kissed him with all my might. 'Yes sir, I understand,' I reassured him. 'Mr. Tate was right.'

Atticus disengaged himself and looked at me. 'What do you mean?'

'Well, it'd be sort of like shootin' a mockingbird, wouldn't it?'" (276).

She finally gets it. Scout finally understands that there's a time and a place for everything especially when it comes to making the right choices about other people in society. If they hadn't kept the secret about Boo Radley, he may have suffered needlessly.

What is the first dream Mr. Lorry has on the Dover mail in Dickins' A Tale of Two Cities?

In Chapter Three, "The Night Shadows," after falling asleep on the way to Dover, Mr. Lorry dreams about Tellson Bank. As the dream develops, Mr. Lorry envisions a man who has been buried for eighteen years, and then manages to dig himself out. Throughout the dream Mr. Lorry revisits this three times, thus confirming that the man was buried for eighteen years. In a reflective moment while waking up, Mr. Lorry contemplates the severity of man being (literally) kept away from nature. This notion is confirmed as Mr. Lorry himself gazes at the vast countryside.

The dream itself is quite telling because it serves as a way for Dickens to explore a key motif throughout the text -- resurrection or rebirth. The dream not only haunts Mr. Lorry, but it also haunts the text on a general level. The plot of the novel is thus driven by this notion of resurrection, at least symbolically, and as Mr. Lorry is resurrected from sleep, we see the sun function as a mechanism of rebirth. 

Discuss Orwell's tone and attitude in the final paragraph of "Shooting an Elephant".

Orwell's tone in the final paragraph seems jaded and resigned to the realities of empire. Two lines in the final paragraph call special attention to the racial inequalities in colonial Burma. Orwell says that his fellow British officers said that an elephant's life was worth more than a coolie (a native laborer,) and that it was a shame he was forced to kill it. He says himself that he was glad the coolie (that was trampled by the elephant) had died, because that meant he was justified in killing the elephant. He also points out that the owner of the dead beast was powerless to do anything about the shooting, since he is "only an Indian." Orwell also draws attention to the central theme of the story--he wonders, in all of the discussions that take place after the incident, if anyone involves realizes that he killed the elephant "solely to avoid looking a fool." In this story, Orwell demonstrates how the imperial relationship corrupts the colonizers, who are often forced to go against their conscience.

For the function h(x)=x+1, where h(x)=(f°g)(x),give the two original functions f(x) and g(x) if the domain of h(x) is [0,∞)

To determine the domain of a composite function, consider the restriction on the domain of the inside function (also referred as the input function) and the restriction on the domain of the final algebraic expression of the composition.

In the given composite function

the final algebraic expression has no restriction on its domain. This indicates that there is only a restriction on the domain of the inside function.

Since

the inside function is g(x).  Take note that if a function has a domain , then it is a radical function and its index is an even number.

So one of the possible form of the inside function is:

The domain of this function is .

In order that  f(g(x)) will be a linear function

the square root in g(x) should be eliminated. So one of the possible form of f(x) is

The domain of this function is .

To verify if these are the individual functions of h(x), take f of g of x.

The resulting algebraic expression is linear. Take note that the domain of a linear function is .

Then, take the intersection of the domain of inside function and final expression.  The two domains and intersect at . So the domain of the composite function h(x) is . 

Therefore, the original functions are   and   .       

What were some challenges that Thomas Jefferson faced while writing the Declaration of Independence?

Thomas Jefferson faced many challenges while writing the Declaration of Independence. One challenge he faced was his age. He was the youngest member of the Second Continental Congress. This could have presented obstacles if Jefferson didn’t do his job well. There were five men that were charged with the task of writing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was chosen because he was a good writer. Yet, if he didn’t do a good job or have well-developed ideas, his age could have worked against him.

A second obstacle Jefferson faced was developing an acceptable draft of the document. Jefferson spent many long days working on the document. He discarded several of his drafts having to begin anew each time he discarded a draft. Jefferson also had to find a way to take all of the ideas he had in his mind and mold them into an effective, clearly-worded document.

Once Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, other members of the committee had to make comments on it. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin did this. A few small changes were made, and then it went to the entire Second Continental Congress. This body would then examine it and decide whether or not to adopt it. More modifications were made, and then the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson had several issues to overcome when writing the Declaration of Independence.

What is a summary of Chapter One or Part One of To Kill a Mockingbird?

Your initial question asked about an "Act One" of To Kill a Mockingbird.  There are no acts in the novel, although there is a Chapter One and a Part One.  Chapter One sets the stage for the novel, introducing the main characters of Jem, Scout, Dill, Atticus, and, of course, Boo Radley.  

Part One of the novel comprises the first 11 chapters.  Aside from initial introductions, this part goes in depth regarding the development of the novel's main characters.  Boo Radley is discussed repeatedly as the neighborhood "monster", but the mended pants and gifts in the tree suggest that perhaps we are not getting the full story.  Harper Lee, the author, introduces the trial of Tom Robinson and the town's reaction to Atticus' decision to take the case, in this part.  The actual trial, however, will serve as the focus in Part Two of the text.

In what ways does Atticus say the Ewells are different from the Finches in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In the third chapter of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout recounts for her father the things that happened during her first miserable day of school. She then begs him not to send her any more. When Atticus says it is unlawful for him not to send her to school, Scout brings up Burris Ewell, saying that the "truant lady reckons she's carried out the law when she gets his name on the roll-[sheet]." Atticus then explains to her why society is willing to bend the rules just a bit for people like the Ewells and to explain in what ways the Ewells are different from the Finches.

To begin with, the Ewells have "been the disgrace of Maycomb for three generations." Not a single Ewell has ever worked for a living. Instead, they are uneducated alcoholics who live off of relief checks, and they spend most of their checks on alcohol. For this reason, the city even permits Bob Ewell, the family's current patriarch, to "hunt and trap out of season." The city figures they would rather permit Bob Ewell to commit a misdemeanor than allow his children to starve. Atticus further says that the Ewells "live like animals," especially because they refuse to be educated even though the doors to education are open to them at any time.

In contrast to the Ewells, the Finches are very educated and honest white-collar workers. Later, in Chapter 5, Scout even tells Miss Maudie that Atticus has "never drunk a drop in his life," which means he is certainly not an alcoholic; therefore, his children are certainly not in any danger of starving while he spends all of their money on alcohol, unlike the poor Ewell children when Bob Ewell feeds his alcoholism.

What are common themes in The Great Gatsby and My Antonia?

There primary theme that is common between both novels is the characters' drive for the American Dream and the somewhat bittersweet results they get when they "achieve" hat dream.

In The Great Gatsby the American Dream is exemplified by Jay Gatsby, who has (by all appearances) risen from having nothing to having everything - wealth, respect, and position. He chose to pursue wealth, however, because he knew Daisy would never want a poor man. This causes us to question whether the American Dream really brings us true happiness.

In My Antonia we see the American Dream through the eyes of immigrants. Antonia and her family work very hard to come to America, and then work very hard once they are here. They view America as a land of opportunities, including money, land, jobs, and marriage prospects. However, the toll their new life takes on them also makes the reader question just how much the American Dream is worth.

In "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury, why can't they change anything about their surroundings? They cannot change anything about their...

Changing anything but what they came there for will trigger the Butterfly Effect.

The Butterfly Effect describes unexpected consequences from a minor event.  When Eckels steps on the butterfly, he accidentally changed the course of the future.  This is an example of the Butterfly Effect.  He only killed one tiny butterfly, but that butterfly affected millions of other events to the point that the future changed.

Eckels hires Time Safari, Inc. to take him back to the age of the dinosaurs so that he can kill one.  When he goes back, his guides Travis and Lesperance warn him not to touch anything or step off the path.  They tell him that they have carefully selected a dinosaur that would have died anyways in moments, and that is the only thing he can kill.  Otherwise, he will set off a shock wave of unintended events.

Crushing certain plants could add up infinitesimally. A little error here would multiply in sixty million years, all out of proportion. Of course maybe our theory is wrong. Maybe Time can’t be changed by us. Or maybe it can be changed only in little subtle ways.

Eckels is a little skeptical, but when he finally sees the dinosaur he is amazed.  He can’t bring himself to shoot it, because it seems like something so large is invincible.  Travis shoots it for him, disgusted.  As they are heading back, they notice that the sign is different.  Eckels finds a butterfly on his shoe.

It fell to the floor, an exquisite thing, a small thing that could upset balances and knock down a line of small dominoes and then big dominoes and then gigantic dominoes, all down the years across Time. Eckels’s mind whirled. It couldn’t change things. Killing one butterfly couldn’t be that important! Could it?

Accidentally stepping on the butterfly created major unintended consequences all right.  Somehow the spelling on the sign changed, and the outcome of the election was different.  A man whom the others feared has been elected, a move that they worried would produce a dictatorship.  One butterfly's death changed the entire future in small ways and large ones.

Discuss Dickens' role as social critic in Great Expectations.

In what has been acclaimed his best novel, Charles Dickens, who was a strong advocate of social reform, attacks several aspects of his Victorian society in Great Expectations:

• The plight of orphaned and abused children.

Both Pip and little Biddy are orphans who are mistreated. Pip often suffers from the lashings of Tickler at the hands of his sister, Mrs. Joe, who resents having to raise him. Biddy, a ward of Mr. Wopsle's great-aunt, is little more than a servant, with her tangled hair and torn dresses. She works in the little general store of this aunt, keeping accounts of all merchandise sold. At other times, Biddy fills the role of servant, as well. In the great-aunt's story, it is Biddy who actually teaches Pip in the great-aunt's school. 

• Abuses in the legal and penal systems

Soon after he comes to London, Pip learns that there is a justice for the rich and a different one for the poor. As he waits for Mr. Jaggers, he looks around at the people waiting outside the barrister's office. Mr. Jagger's asks these clients if they have paid Mr. Wemmick, and exhibits no sympathy for them.

"Oh, yes, sir! Every farthing."
"Very Well. Say another word--one single word--and Wemmick shall give you your money back.

Further, he simply dismisses them if they cannot pay his fee.

Perhaps, the most defining instance of the inequities of the Victorian system of justice exists in the history of Magwitch--who was a product of poverty and forced to steal to keep from starving--and in the story of the trial of Magwitch (the wretch of the streets) and Compeyson, a supposed "gentleman." Even though Magwitch has been guilty of lesser crimes, he has been given the severest of punishment, while the designer of the crimes, dressed in fine clothes, has been dealt a lesser sentence.

• Social class privilege and snobbery

One of the best examples of the snobbery of the upper class comes from the attitude and the words of Estella when she is told to play with Pip: "...with this boy! ...he is a common-labouring boy!" (Of course, the irony is that Estella is the child of two lower class criminals).

The relatives of Miss Havisham are always disdainful of Pip, worried that he may be given money by Miss Havisham. 
Even Pip falls into the attitude that the rich are somehow superior: When he learns that Miss Havisham is not his benefactor--a woman who is so eccentric that, were she not rich, she would be ridiculed--and that Magwitch is, Pip is repulsed and appalled.

That social privilege and snobbery is exalted in Victorian society is lampooned by Dickens in Chapter XXIII in which the ridiculous Mrs. Pocket spends all her time trying to locate an aristocrat as an ancestor while her children tumble over her feet, nearly swallowing dangerous items, with the maid rescuing them from accidents.

Also, within the element of farce are the thespian ventures of Mr. Wopsle who fancies himself a Shakespearean actor after he moves to London and aspires to elevate himself.

• The adulation of a rising middle class for a frivolous aristocracy

Uncle Pumblechook best exemplifies a fawning middle class that aspires to be associated with the rich, who are unconcerned with the conditions of poverty and poor health and crime in their country. 

When Pip receives his wealth, suddenly Uncle Pumblechook likes Pip and tries to take credit for Pip's rise in social class as he has an article printed the local paper.

• Alcohol abuse

Orlick, who is representative of the dangers of drunkenness in Chapter LIII, attacks Pip with a hammer at the old sluice-house. In drunken ramblings, Orlick tells Pip that he knows Compeyson and that he was on the stairway on the night Magwitch appeared at Pip's. Pip cries out just as the drunken Orlick, taking a swig of liquor, picks up a hammer to attack with, but Herbert and others intervene to save Pip. 

What were some of George Washington's issues when he was president, and how did he solve them?

As the first president, nearly every issue George Washington dealt with required him to invent the solutions, as no precedents existed and the the practical responsibilities of the presidency were not well established. When he took office, the only actual part of the federal government that existed were those offices created by the Constitution, so the United States had a Congress but no agencies or departments or even a functional court system.

On of the first things he did was establish the Supreme Court through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The six-member court, in theory, would mediate conflicts between the states and oversee the lower federal courts.

Washington also established the first cabinet, surrounding himself with many of the more influential members of the Revolution. Within just a short time, his advisors split largely into two camps. One one side, Alexander Hamilton pushed for a stronger federal government with a centralized bank and a permanent army. On the other side, Jefferson wanted to limit the power of the federal government. Each cabinet member oversaw a new department, like the ones we have today such as Treasury, War (now Defense), etc. These departments, in turn, became the institutions of governance in the young nation. 

Washington needed to create revenue for the government to pay off debts incurred from the Revolution, so, siding with Hamilton, he secured new taxes on a number of luxury goods. The most unpopular, the Whiskey Tax, sparked an event that became known as the Whiskey Rebellion. Distillers in Pennsylvania revolted, and Washington assumed command of a federal army and met the rebels, ready for combat, but they backed down. His leadership helped legitimize the authority of the new federal government. 

Finally, the political landscape of Europe changed rapidly during his presidency, as the French Revolution ended the monarchy and threatened to spread throughout Europe. France had been the major ally of the American Revolutionaries and many Americans viewed the French Revolution, at least initially, as an extension of their own fight for liberty. Jefferson was a particularly vocal supporter. Hamilton and many in his camp opposed any American support of the Revolution in France and favored moving the United States closer to England, repairing relations and promoting commercial ties. Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality, which bought the Americans some time, but also set up his successors for a much more serious contest between French and British alliances as Hamilton and Adams vied for power with Jefferson in the coming decade.

What purpose is served by introducing the old lady as an informer in "The Sniper"?

Liam O'Flaherty's short story "The Sniper" is about a Republican sniper on a Dublin rooftop during the Irish Civil War. The war involved Republicans, who believed Ireland should have total autonomy, against Free Staters, who had agreed on a treaty with Britain. Free State troops were aided by the British and eventually won the war.

The protagonist is in a city full of enemies and is suspicious of everyone. The "old woman" points to the roof where the sniper is hiding and he kills her and the armored car commander.

The old woman's death signifies the cruelty of a war that involves soldier and civilian alike. She is a citizen of Dublin who risks her life to "inform" on an enemy in a bitter fight that involved intense hatred on both sides. The atrocities hit a fever pitch when the Republican sniper kills his Free State counterpart and discovers his enemy is really his own brother.   

In Lord of the Flies, what offer does Jack make on behalf of himself and his hunters?

At first Jack is disappointed that he isn't voted in as chief, but Ralph helps assuage Jack's hurt feelings by allowing him to choose a role for his choir members to play. Jack immediately says he wants them to be hunters. Later, when the boys try making their first signal fire, Ralph begins to assert his authority by saying that "we've got to have special people for looking after the fire." Jack is on board with this idea, as well as the idea that the society needs rules and must obey them. He magnanimously offers his choir members, now the hunters, to be "responsible for keeping the fire going." This brings applause from the boys, and Jack begins assigning duties to the altos and trebles. He also says that they will keep a lookout for ships, and if they see any, they will put more green branches on the fire to produce more smoke. This is the height of harmony for the group. Before long the first fire has become a raging forest fire, killing a littlun, and soon Jack takes the fire-tenders away from their post to help with the pig hunt, resulting in them missing being rescued by a passing ship. So although Jack's offer is generous, he fails to follow through on his commitment.

Did Romeo and Juliet behave sensibly?

The obvious answer would be that Romeo and Juliet do not behave sensibly in Romeo and Juliet, but there are nuances that can be explored. Before going into the question, it may be helpful to look at the definition of the word "sensible":

- having or showing good sense or judgment

- designed to be comfortable, useful, etc., rather than stylish (Merriam-Webster)

It can obviously be argued that Romeo and Juliet do not show good sense or judgment, as they rush quickly into their relationship. This impatience costs both families lives, including the lives of Romeo and Juliet. Many lives would have been saved if Romeo and Juliet took a different route and been more patient in the play. However, Romeo and Juliet's ages must be taken into consideration. Both of these characters are young teenagers, and their emotions are quite sensible for their immature ages. Furthermore, marriages were often quick and arranged during this time period. To a contemporary audience, Romeo and Juliet are humorously quick in advancing their relationship. Yet, their relationship exists in a classical framework, when relationships were extremely different than they are today. When taking their context and ages into consideration, it could be argued that Romeo and Juliet did behave sensibly and to the best of their cognitive ability.

Is the earth a dark planet in A Wrinkle in Time?

The earth is partially a dark planet in A Wrinkle in Time. The children learn this when the Happy Medium shows them in her crystal ball that a dark shadow hovers on the earth. What keeps the evil forces (The Black Thing) threatening earth at bay are the good people, chiefly religious leaders, creative people and philosophers. In contrast to earth, a fully dark planet, like Camazotz, is one that has been completely overtaken by The Black Thing. Other worlds, like the planet Uriel that the children visit, have not been invaded The Black Thing and are filled with love.

The idea that earth is a battleground between good and evil and partially covered in darkness accords with traditional Christian theology, which sees the earth as "fallen," that is, invaded by evil, but also "saved" by the presence of figures like Jesus Christ.

How does Tybalt killing Mercuito contribute to the death of Romeo and Juliet in Romeo and Juliet?

Mercutio’s death sets off a chain of events that leads to Romeo and Juliet’s death when Romeo is banished.

Tybalt was a Capulet and Romeo was a Montague.  When Tybalt saw Romeo at the Capulet ball, he got upset.  He wanted to fight Romeo then, but Lord Capulet would not let him.  Tybalt caught up with Romeo later.  He started a fight that resulted in his killing Mercutio instead of Romeo.  Romeo refused to fight, so Mercutio stepped in.  Romeo tried to stop the fight and Mercutio was killed under his arm.

As much as Romeo did not want to fight Tybalt, when Mercutio was killed he had no choice.  He had to avenge Tybalt’s death.  After he did so, the prince punished him with banishment.  Actually he should have been executed, but the prince took pity on him.  Still, for Romeo being banished was just as bad as being executed because it took him away from Juliet.

FRIAR LAURENCE

A gentler judgment vanish'd from his lips,
Not body's death, but body's banishment.

ROMEO

Ha, banishment! be merciful, say 'death;'
For exile hath more terror in his look,
Much more than death: do not say 'banishment.' (Act 3, Scene 3)

Romeo’s banishment led to Juliet faking her death.  Her parents did not know about Romeo, and she could not tell them.  With Romeo gone, she was left to her own devices.  They wanted her to marry Paris.  Before she knew it a wedding was planned, and she had no choice but to go along.  She did not seem to know how to get the message to Romeo.

Friar Laurence tasked Friar John with getting a letter to Romeo.  Alas, Friar John was waylaid by a plague!

FRIAR LAURENCE

Who bare my letter, then, to Romeo?

FRIAR JOHN

I could not send it,--here it is again,--
Nor get a messenger to bring it thee,
So fearful were they of infection. (Act 5, Scene 2)

Because Romeo did not get the message, he went to Juliet’s tomb and thought she was dead.  He killed Paris, and then killed himself.   When Juliet woke, she found him actually dead and killed herself.  The events are all connected.

Romeo and Juliet might not have had a happy ending if Tybalt had not intervened.  However, his fight with Romeo resulted in their deaths because Prince Escalus forbade the Montagues and Capulets from fighting.  He did not execute Romeo, but he did banish him.  Romeo and Juliet did not react maturely.

Be able to describe the relationship between fatty acids and triacylglycerol

Lipids are hydrophobic non-- polar large molecules that are built from smaller molecules attached by covalent bonds. Examples of lipids are  fats, oils and waxes. 

A fat is composed of glycerol and three fatty acids. Glycerol is a type of alcohol with three carbons in the molecule to which a hydroxyl group is attached to every carbon. A fatty acid contains a carboxyl group attached to a long carbon skeleton to which hydrogens are bonded. The skeleton is usually between 16-18 carbons in length. Because of the covalent bonds between carbon and hydrogen which are non polar, the skeleton is hydrophobic and the reason why fats and water do not mix--the polar water molecules hydrogen bond to eachother and don't bond to the fats.

A fat molecule is formed by dehydration synthesis when three fatty acids are joined to a glycerol molecule which forms a triacylglycerol (triglyceride). The bonds where the fatty acid join to the glycerol molecule are known as ester linkages. Each of the three fatty acids may be of the same type, or different fatty acids.

Therefore the relationship between fatty acids and triacylglycerol is that a fatty acid is a component of fat and a fat molecule itself contains three fatty acids attached to a molecule of glycerol--hence the word  triacylglycerol which refers to three of those fatty acid molecules which are present in a fat. The functions of fat are--energy storage, to cushion the internal organs and for insulation.

I have included a link with a diagram showing how the macromolecule fat is formed by dehydration synthesis from its smaller components--glycerol and three fatty acids.