How do I find the electronegativity of SCL2?

The electronegativity of an atom indicates how strongly it can pull electrons towards itself when bonded with another atom. Each element has been assigned a numerical value to indicate its relative electronegativity. You can easily find the electronegativity value for each element by searching “electronegativity values of elements” on the internet or by looking in your chemistry textbook.

Electronegativity is an example of a periodic table trend. In general, electronegativity increases as you move from left to right across the periodic table and decreases as you move from top to bottom.

You can use electronegativity to predict the type of bond that will occur between two atoms as follows:

• 
  Step 1: Locate a table of electronegativity values in a chemistry book or on the internet.

• 
  Step 2: Use the table of electronegativity values to determine the electronegativity of each atom in the bond.

• 
  Step 3: Calculate the difference between the electronegativity values of the two atoms.

                  If the difference is > 1.7, the bond is most likely ionic.

                  If the difference is 0.4 - 1.7, the bond is most likely polar covalent.

                  If the difference is 0.0 - 0.4, the bond is most likely nonpolar covalent.

Now, let’s look at the molecule, `~SCl_2`.

• 
  Step 1: According to the table of electronegativity values, the electronegativity of S is 2.58 and the electronegativity of Cl is 3.16. This means that when a bond is formed between an S atom and a Cl atom, the Cl atom will pull more strongly on the electrons in the bond than the S atom.

• 
  Step 2: The difference between the two electronegativity values is: 3.16 – 2.58 = 0.58.

• 
  Step 3: Since the difference between the electronegativity values is 0.58, the bonds between the S atom and each of the Cl atoms are most likely polar covalent.

Why is Don Quixote always belittling Sancho and calling him derogatory names? The true measure of a noble man was not in how he treated his equals,...

There are several reasons why Don Quixote abuses Sancho the way he does.

The first two are related to each other: humor and entertainment. It is funny, in a broad, slapstick fashion, for Don Quixote to abuse Sancho this way. In his study of Don Quixote, Daniel Eisenberg suggests in these two characters Cervantes gives us the two sides of humor: the ridiculous and the ugly, and does so in ridiculous deeds (like attacking windmills) and ridiculous words (abusing Sancho) 

This abuse is also part of the larger inversion of the world. Everything in this novel is turned upside down. The "knight" is crazy, the monsters are not real, etc. As the question pointed out, knights are supposed to treat their squires with respect. Abusing Sancho is part of this inversion of the natural order--it aligns with insanity.

This, in turn, aligns with Cervantes' purpose for this story. Rather than being a straightforward romance of chivalry, it is a parody.

And finally, it is one of the many ways in which Cervantes signals we should look past the surface of things. Go with the surface, and Quixote is crazy and abusive. Look deeper, and he's a hero (and fond of Sancho, perhaps?).

In The Miracle Worker, what are things Helen does that demonstrate her intelligence and understanding of the world around her?

Helen cannot see or hear, but this does not make her unaware or unintelligent.  One day, her mother puts on her bonnet because she is going out.  Helen feels the bonnet on her mother's head and knows that she is about to leave the house.  She does not want her mother to go, and she tries to remove the bonnet.

When Miss Annie Sullivan arrives, she hands Helen a key.  The girl uses it to unlock Annie's suitcase.  Later, Helen locks Annie in her room and hides the door key.  It is later revealed that Helen hid the key in her mouth.  After Helen removes the key from inside her mouth, "she takes it in her fingers, stands thinking, gropes to the pump, lifts a loose board, drops the key into the well, and hugs herself gleefully" ("The Miracle Worker," Act One, Scene 8).  Helen is not pleased with Annie being in the house, so she locks the woman in her room and tries to remove any means of letting her out.

Describe the basics of the Big Bang Theory, the argument from design, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Are any of these theories compatible with...

The Big Bang is a model for the origins and structure of the universe. According to the theory, the universe was once a very small singularity that then expanded. In the time following the Big Bang, the elements that form the building blocks of the universe began to coalesce, giving rise to stars and galaxies. The remnants of this expansion can be observed today in the cosmic microwave background, and the universe is still expanding today.  

Despite popular misconception, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the diversity of life, not an explanation for how life arose in the first place (this is called abiogenesis). Basically, evolution by natural selection is driven by environment and mutations. Environmental pressures will favor certain individuals within a population and not others; as a result, those individuals with favorable traits (driven by mutations and variations that exist within a population) will survive and pass on the traits that allowed them to survive. Over time, a population will evolve to become better suited to its environment as its environment changes.  

The argument from design is less specific than the Big Bang (model of the universe) or evolution by natural selection (explanation for the diversity of life). It instead attempts to justify a belief in a god by pointing to perceived design in the natural world. A famous example of this argument is the watchmaker analogy, which asks the listener to imagine stumbling upon a watch. The listener would not assume, the analogy argues, that the watch just appeared as a random coming together of parts. Rather, the listener would assume that the watch was designed by an intelligence. This can be applied to the rest of the natural world as well, as the world shows apparent design in its structure.

As the argument from design is specifically meant to prove the existence of a god, it is most certainly compatible with Catholic doctrine. Regarding the Big Bang, Catholic doctrine is explicit that God created the universe from nothing; however, it is open to the idea that the universe may have arisen gradually after this moment of creation (as the Big Bang suggests). Evolution (and specifically human evolution from previous species) is a little trickier to square with Catholicism. The reality of Adam and Eve is essential for the foundations of Catholic doctrine, specifically that the sin of Adam and Eve brought death into the world and the sacrifice of Christ brings salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The concession that Genesis uses figurative language may allow for some wiggle room, but the Catholic Church is adamant that the events described did actually happen. A Catholic could argue that Adam and Eve were evolved from prior species before the events of Genesis took place, assuming that the language describing the creation of Adam from the Earth is this "figurative" language the Catechism speaks of. 

Which positive and negative character traits are exhibited by some of the animals in Animal Farm?

There were animals on the farm who truly relished the opportunity to live a life of freedom from man's oppression and were quite prepared to make the necessary sacrifices for the good of all concerned. One such animal was Snowball, who displayed a number of positive character traits in his approach.

After the Rebellion, it was he who encouraged the animals to spring to work, as indicated by the following extract from chapter 2:

"Comrades," said Snowball, "it is half-past six and we have a long day before us. Today we begin the hay harvest. But there is another matter that must be attended to first."

He played this role until his expulsion. He was always hard at work motivating the animals and played a central role in organizing the farm. He, for example, created a number of committees and was tireless at organizing them, as we read in chapter 3:

Snowball also busied himself with organising the other animals into what he called Animal Committees. He was indefatigable at this. He formed the Egg Production Committee for the hens, the Clean Tails League for the cows, the Wild Comrades' Re-education Committee (the object of this was to tame the rats and rabbits), the Whiter Wool Movement for the sheep, and various others, besides instituting classes in reading and writing.

Clearly, Snowball was unselfish and had everyone's best interests at heart. However, a negative characteristic was that he, much like the other pigs, accepted that they were entitled to certain privileges from which the other animals were excluded, such as their claim to the milk and windfall apples. This suggests an air of superiority and goes against the principles of Animalism which expounds equality and fairness. This supercilious claim to certain benefits is mentioned in chapter 3 when some of the animals complained about the unfair distribution:

At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon.

Boxer, too, exhibited hard work and dedication. He was committed to giving his all for the farm, as we read, also in chapter 3:

Boxer was the admiration of everybody. He had been a hard worker even in Jones's time, but now he seemed more like three horses than one; there were days when the entire work of the farm seemed to rest on his mighty shoulders. From morning to night he was pushing and pulling, always at the spot where the work was hardest.

Sadly, though, one of Boxer's negative characteristics was that he became too slavish and seldom questioned Napoleon's motives. Being the strongest animal on the farm, and the fact that he had the admiration and respect of the majority of the others, meant that he could have easily taken charge and opposed Napoleon's later dictatorial rule. His simple-mindedness prevented him from so doing and he, instead, adopted the maxim, 'Napoleon is always right,' leading to continued abuse and, ironically, his death, at the hands of the selfish, uncaring and greedy pigs when they sold him to the knacker.

Benjamin, the donkey, had the intelligence and ability to oppose the pigs and defend the other animals since he was just as intelligent as them - a positive trait, also mentioned in chapter 3:

Benjamin could read as well as any pig, but never exercised his faculty. So far as he knew, he said, there was nothing worth reading. 

The extract suggests that Benjamin adopted an apathetic attitude. This negative trait suited him perfectly, but if he had applied himself better, he could have introduced changes that would have benefited everyone. He could have challenged the pigs when they changed the commandments. His careless attitude displays some selfishness on his part and he, as mentioned in the following extract from chapter 3, remained much the same throughout:

Old Benjamin, the donkey, seemed quite unchanged since the Rebellion. He did his work in the same slow obstinate way as he had done it in Jones's time, never shirking and never volunteering for extra work either. About the Rebellion and its results he would express no opinion. When asked whether he was not happier now that Jones was gone, he would say only "Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey," and the others had to be content with this cryptic answer.

One could cynically suggest that Benjamin was too clever for his own good and maybe for the other animals too. 

One could also refer to Napoleon and Squealer in this essay. The former had a commanding and controlling nature, which resulted in his leadership of the farm. He was blessed with a natural ability to take control, a positive characteristic, but unfortunately, he was overwhelmed by a selfish desire for power and authority which lead to him abusing the animals for his and his cronies' benefit. In the end, his tyranny was even worse than that of Jones and his men. 

Squealer had the 'gift of the gab.' He was a persuasive and vivacious pig, able to convince others easily - truly a positive trait. It is sad that he did not put this talent to better use. He, instead, chose to manipulate the other animals and propagate Napoleon's abuse. Since he was such a brilliant orator, it was easy for him to spread lies and deceive the animals into believing whatever he told them, to ensure their acquiescence and silence. His greed and loyalty to Napoleon became a paramount factor in the abuse of all the other animals.

Is the fact that most likely you have less talent than Mozart a reason for you to refrain from trying to compose music?

There are many reasons to say absolutely not! First of all, it’s important to remember that Mozart’s composing abilities were as much a product of his environment as his natural talent. Mozart’s father, Leopold Mozart, was also a composer and musician, and Mozart began learning music before the age of four. It’s likely that Mozart’s musical prowess was indebted to the thousands of hours he spent practicing before adulthood. Malcom Gladwell and others have argued that to achieve mastery at any subject, it takes 10,000 hours of high-quality practice—Mozart had an excellent head start on this number due to his upbringing. Viewing Mozart’s talent as the result of diligent practice implies that anyone who is willing to put in the same time and effort—their 10,000 hours—can also reach lofty heights of musical achievement. More importantly, if you derive joy and delight from composing, there is absolutely no reason to refrain from trying your hand at writing music, even if you don’t have the talent of Mozart. In my mind, anyone who loves music has every reason to put as much into it as their heart desires—the process of playing, writing, and expressing emotion through music is its own reward.

How does Charles Dickens relate Christmas Carol to the Victorian Era?

A Christmas Carol is one of Dickens' most popular stories but, beneath its message of reformation, is a strong indictment of Victorian society. That Dickens was inspired to write the book after reading a report, about the working conditions of children in the Staffordshire potteries, speaks volumes about its social message. He wanted to bring to light the darker side of industrial Britain; a place where poverty and deprivation were widespread and, quite often, ignored. 

Nowhere is Dickens' social message more evident than in the first chapter when two gentlemen call on Scrooge and ask him to make a donation to their charitable fund for London's paupers. These people, banished to prisons and workhouses, were not based on fiction. Poverty was a genuine problem in the city and efforts to alleviate the problem were minimal. Scrooge's cold response represents the unhelpful attitude of much of the Victorian establishment: 

(Scrooge)"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

This last line is repeated to Scrooge by the Ghost of Christmas Present in the third chapter. By reinforcing this point, Dickens sought to make people aware of the problem of poverty and its humanitarian implications. He wanted people to feel the plight of others and to help them, not to ignore their very existence.