Dramatic irony occurs when the reader knows something that a character does not. Identify three examples of dramatic irony in this story. What is...

Perhaps the biggest example of dramatic irony within The Cask of Amontillado is the overall plot in and of itself: Montresor is planning on killing Fortunato, which we learn at the beginning of the story, though Fortunato is under the impression that he is on his way to test the validity of a non-existent barrel of amontillado. But there are still smaller parts within the plot that also exhibit dramatic irony, such as when Montresor repeatedly says that they should turn back because of Fortunato's health, which we know is the opposite of what Montresor actually wants. Also, Montresor gives Fortunato a couple of drinks of alcohol from his stores on their way down to the end of the vaults, telling Fortunato that is to "defend [them] from the damps", but in reality he is simply trying to keep Fortunato too drunk to fight back; he even goes so far as to say that he drinks to Fortunato's long life.

Dramatic irony always adds something to a reader's experience. In this case, it is suspense as we ask ourselves: When will Fortunato find out what Montresor's true intentions are? Will Fortunato find out? Or will he just fall victim to Montresor's revenge without knowing it? The story is fairly short, so we don't have long to wonder about Fortunato's fate, but while we read, we do find ourselves wondering about how everything will end.

Can you explain the pro and con debate regarding the Obamacare issue, 2016?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, also known as “Obamacare”) is so voluminous and addresses so many issues within the realm of health care, that students of this enormous effort at reforming the nation’s health care system are still analyzing the law’s provisions and effects. The Affordable Care Act was politically contentious upon conception, and remains controversial six years after its passage—despite the well-founded assumption that few of the lawmakers who supported or opposed it really understood what was in it. Having spent 20 years as a congressional staffer familiar with the reading habits of many members of Congress, I would personally be very surprised if more than a dozen of the 535 members of the House of Representatives and Senate had actually invested the time and energy into reading and analyzing the legislation needed to fully understand its many provisions. While it is true that all members of Congress have aides who are supposed to read and analyze legislation for their employers, it is the members of Congress themselves elected to represent their constituents who have a responsibility to seriously understand the legislation on which they vote—especially when that legislation affects every citizen of the country.

The purpose of the above is to emphasize that debates over the Affordable Care Act that occur as part of the ongoing presidential campaign will rarely, if ever, touch on concrete issues of concern to the public. Rather, the partisan divide surrounding the Affordable Care Act can best be explained in the basest terms as the distinction between those who support a large government role in the provision and administration of medical care and those who just as fervently believe that the private sector is best able to provide such care. The role of the federal government in our daily lives is, in fact, a defining characteristic of both major political parties in the United States, and the fight over passage and implementation of the Affordable Act reflects those political distinctions. Consequently, the pros and cons of “Obamacare,” as they will be discussed among most politicians running for office are largely boiled down to perceptions of the proper role of government in administering health care, with Democrats supporting the enormous increase in the government’s role mandated in the 2010 law and Republicans continuing to argue that the law imposed costly and inefficient mandates on medical practitioners while increasing the costs of health care to the middle class through the imposition of higher taxes to subsidize the provision of medical insurance and care to the millions of Americans who were previously un- or underinsured.

Among the more highly-publicized issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act is the difficulties many individual states as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services experienced establishing and operating so-called insurance exchanges, centralized databases that are supposed to provide members of the public with health care options at varying prices. Construction of such centralized databases proved every bit as unwieldy as the law’s critics predicted, but the fact that any such program was certain to experience growing pains does help place those difficulties into a proper context. Additionally, there is no denying the fact that millions of previously uninsured Americans have benefited being added to the existing Medicaid system, which is good, I suppose, for previously uninsured low-income citizens, but debates regarding Medicaid’s solvency, or insolvency, over the coming years does not bode well for an already burdensome system.

In short, the pros of Obamacare involve primarily the fact of over ten million previously uninsured Americans now having access to the health care system. The cons generally involve questions about the efficiency of the newly-established market exchanges, about the true long-term costs of the law, which could be enormous, and about the inability of the federal government to efficiently run itself let alone a health care system intended to cover potentially hundreds of millions of people. Most Republicans currently running for president support repeal of or, at a minimum, modification of the Affordable Care Act, while Democratic presidential contender Bernard Sanders is advocating going even beyond the existing law to make the federal government the sole administrator of the entire nation’s health care. Between those two positions likely lies the answer to whatever problems one identifies with Obamacare. It was always going to take a solid ten years for the full effects of the 2010 law to be felt, and we’re not there yet.

What would our life be like without tectonic plates?

Tectonic plates are fragments or parts of our lithosphere. The continuous motion of these plates is known as plate tectonics. To understand the life without tectonic plates, let us understand what they do for us. 

Plate tectonics is a major geologic building activity. In simplest terms, it helps in the formation of mountains. Volcanic activity and earthquakes are also attributed to plate tectonics. In general, plate tectonics helps in cycling of material between the crust and mantle of Earth. Plate tectonics also act as a global thermostat and keeps the temperature in a range preferable for life. Without tectonic plates (that is, the outer surface of Earth would be one single, continuous layer), there would be no recycling of material. Mountains will erode and landscape would appear much different. Lack of mountains will mean a more uniform weather around the world. A uniform weather will also result in less biological diversity. It has also been suggested that presence and continuous motion of these tectonic plates is the reason we have life on Earth.

Hope this helps. 

In "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes, how has Charlie changed since the operation? What has he gained and what has he lost?

In Daniel Keyes' story "Flowers for Algernon," a mentally handicapped man named Charlie is given an operation to increase his intelligence. Charlie has worked at Mr. Donnegan's factory for some years at this point, and he feels as though he has many friends there. As his intelligence increases though, he realizes that what he took for friendship was really one sided. He loved his co-workers, but what they loved about Charlie was the fact that they could make fun of him and use him. Even though he now knows that many of them never really were his friends, he misses what he believed was a certain camaraderie with them. The workers also begin to resent Charlie because he is now so much smarter than they are. He comes up with ways to save the factory money, but instead of being happy for Charlie, his co-workers dislike him more and more. Charlie also eventually becomes even more intelligent than his doctors. His intelligence far surpasses his teacher, Miss Kinnian, and the relationship he once hoped for with her becomes impossible. 

What subject were the banker and lawyer discussing at the party?

"The Bet" opens at a dinner party in which the banker is the host and the lawyer is one of his guests. The topic of discussion at this party is capital punishment and, specifically, whether it is better to die than to spend one's life in solitary confinement.

For the banker, the answer to this question is simple: the death penalty is "more moral" and "more humane" than imprisoning a person for the duration of his life. In contrast, the lawyer believes the opposite and argues that it is better to live some life than to have no life at all.

It is this difference in opinion which provides the context for the bet. Feeling confident, the banker proposes the bet to the young and ambitious lawyer who is keen to enrich himself, regardless of the emotional sacrifices involved.

Why is this the last christmas that Buddy and his cousin spend together?

In Truman Capote’s short story “A Christmas Memory” Buddy and his friend spend one last Christmas together making and delivering their fruitcakes, cutting down a Christmas tree, and secretly making each other presents of kites. When they were making the fruitcakes, they purchased some moonshine whiskey for soaking the cakes. There was a bit leftover which Buddy and his friend drank. The family became upset with the pair, especially with his friend because it was inappropriate for a seven-year-old boy to be drinking whiskey. The family celebrated Christmas but soon after, they decide that is time for Buddy to go to military boarding school. He exchanges letters with his friend until she is no longer able. Buddy knows, without being told, that his friend passed on. They were never able to spend another Christmas season together.

Does the Plowman have a tale in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales?

The Plowman does not have a tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. There have been several stories by writers other than Chaucer that claimed to be the Plowman's tale in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, though. At least one of these made it briefly into print during that time period. 

Although the Plowman is one of several characters in the General Prologue not to have a tale, he is one of the most favorably described characters:

He was an honest worker, good and true,

Living in peace and perfect charity,

And, as the Gospel bade, so did he,

Loving God best with all his heart and mind

And then his neighbor as himself.

Perhaps the Plowman is too good to have an interesting tale. Most of Chaucer's pilgrims tell tales that reflect in some way on their own imperfections or obsessions, but the Plowman doesn't appear to have any of those. He has a brother who is also travelling with the pilgrims, the Parson, who is also an upstanding character, and the only member of the clergy Chaucer does not depict as corrupt in some way.