Good vs. evil in Lord of the Flies: Explain which one triumphs, giving three reasons why.

Consistent with his theme that humankind is innately depraved, Golding has evil triumph over good in Lord of the Flies. Even though he doesn't write the book so that all the boys die, or even so that all the "good" boys die, evil achieves the upper hand as evidenced by the symbolic loss of spirituality and reason through the deaths of Simon and Piggy; Jack's embracing of premeditated murder; and the betrayal of Samneric, the last boys loyal to Ralph.

The point at which evil begins winning in the novel is the murder of Simon by the mob. Simon, the sensitive boy and the Christ figure, represents spirituality, religion, and/or philosophy. Simon is the only one of the boys who understands "mankind's essential illness," and he dies while trying to bring them the good news about the beast--that it "was harmless and horrible." That not just Jack but also Ralph, Piggy, and Samneric try to re-write history to deny their culpability in his death gives evil the upper hand. The "good" boys, those who haven't joined Jack's tribe, then try to muddle along with reason alone, represented by Piggy, the most intelligent of the boys. He is first handicapped when Jack's tribe steals his glasses, then is deliberately murdered. Spirituality and reason are the best ways to keep human depravity in check; without them, evil quickly spreads and gains control, just as Jack's power quickly becomes complete after the deaths of Simon and Piggy.

When Jack embraces Roger's brutal killing of Piggy by saying, "See? See? That's what you'll get!" he fully gives himself over to evil. If seeing a murder committed in front of him by one of his boys in broad daylight can't shame him, he is beyond hope. That proves to be true, for he immediately plans to hunt and kill Ralph as if he were nothing more than a pig. This shows he has fully embraced evil as his way of life--and he will lead the rest of the boys down that same path.

When Samneric, who have been made part of Jack's tribe against their will, betray Ralph by divulging his hiding spot, even the faint hope that at least some boys will retain their integrity and fight against the darkness dies. Although Ralph imagines that they are "hating it" as they are hunting him with Jack, that means nothing. The fact is, they comply with his evil regime, succumbing to physical torture rather than holding onto what is right. Ralph cannot survive on his own when there is not a single boy to help him. Evil has won.

Although Golding allows a naval officer--a representative of a saner portion of humanity that one hopes is doing its best to fight against an evil regime in the war taking place in the greater world--to rescue the boys, it is something of a deus ex machina. Without the help of a "higher power" the boys would have killed Ralph first, then all would have perished in the fire or from starvation. Golding wraps up his fictional social experiment, showing that evil is powerful enough to triumph over good, and presenting a clear warning that all must be on guard to prevent that from happening in our world.

When does Jimmy figure out who the man from the west really is in "After Twenty Years" by O. Henry?

As soon as Jimmy sees Bob, he recognizes him as the wanted man, rather than his old friend.

In this story, two old friends make an arrangement to meet each other at a restaurant in twenty years.  They do meet, but things do not go as planned.  Jimmy and Bob have not seen each other for a long time.  When Jimmy sees Bob, he does not immediately acknowledge him, but he does recognize him.  He realizes he is a criminal.

Jimmy talks to Bob, pretending to be just another cop.  He doesn’t acknowledge that he recognizes him as a wanted man from Chicago.  He can’t bring himself to arrest his old friend.  They chat, and then he walks off.  He gets another cop to pretend to be him.

"...The old restaurant is gone, Bob. I wish it were here, so that we could have another dinner in it. Has the West been good to you?”

“It gave me everything I asked for. You’ve changed, Jimmy. I never thought you were so tall.”

“Oh, I grew a little after I was twenty.”

“Are you doing well in New York, Jimmy?”

Bob realizes that something is up because the man has a different kind of nose.  He is a little upset at the charade.  At this point, Bob is given a note from Jimmy explaining why he did what he did. 

“Bob: I was at the place on time. I saw the face of the man wanted by Chicago cops. I didn’t want to arrest you myself. So I went and got another cop and sent him to do the job.

JIMMY.”

Being a cop is important to Jimmy, but so is being a friend.  Jimmy found a way to do his duty and still be a good friend.  He kept his appointment.  He did not betray his friend, at least not to his face.

What is the duality between England and France in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens?

The duality of Paris (the capital city of France) and London (the capital city of England), comparing and contrasting the nature of the two cities, presents a foundational theme of the novel—order versus chaos. London is portrayed as a place of safety and peace. Its society is well-ordered and purposeful, personified in the character of Jarvis Lorry, the banker. There are rules to be followed, regardless of personal choice. Although the novel is set during the American Revolution, the war does not affect the life of the average person in London. All life goes on as usual, with the surface of society seeming to be unruffled.

In Paris, chaos is erupting on all levels. The nobility is desperately sheltering itself from the troubles of the poor, while the poor are beginning to simmer, ready to boil over. There is no peace, even though the beginning of the story depicts the people as living in their misery with no outward confrontation. This is especially personified in the characters of Monsieur and Madame Defarge as they talk of the change that is sure to come when the time is right. The breaking point is finally reached and the revolution breaks out, destroying poor and rich alike. The chaos leaks into London, but only in the sense of the nobility seeking shelter and protection. Charles Darnay and the others must willingly enter the chaos of the French Revolution, breaking through the symbolic barrier of peace separating the two cities.

In the story "The Ransom of Red Chief," why is Bill's favorite Biblical character King Herod? Why is this humorous?

Bill Driscoll is one of two kidnappers who take a young boy named Johnny Dorset for ransom. Ironically, however, the boy winds up taking control of the situation because he terrifies one kidnapper, Bill, while the second, Sam, negotiates the ransom. As a result, Bill endures physically exhausting play with the rambunctious Johnny. Johnny yells at, threatens, hits and punches Bill--leaving a few marks in the process! Bill soon becomes overwhelmed and fatigued. As Sam attempts to leave him with the boy a second time, Bill makes the following comment:

"Sam, do you know who my favorite Biblical character is? . . . King Herod . . . You won't go away and leave me here alone, will you, Sam?"

King Herod is the one who ordered all firstborn baby boys killed when he heard rumors that a baby had been born who would take his place as King of the Jews. Since Johnny is his father's eldest, Bill's reference to King Herod from the New Testament is appropriate. He implies that King Herod had the right idea by killing little boys. This helps to show the reader how Bill truly feels about Johnny. He either wishes he could kill Johnny, or he wishes Johnny had never been born. Either way, it is humorous that Bill would make this connection to King Herod in the Bible. It shows just how overwhelmed Bill is after spending so much time with Johnny. The comment is also funny because it isn't explained further. The King Herod comment is left untouched by the characters so readers can make the connection to the story about King Herod for themselves and draw their own conclusions about Bill's feelings in "The Ransom of Red Chief."

"Contrast the Democratic party nominating rules with the Republican party nominating rules in New York. Which set of rules used advantages the...

The Democratic Party primaries are all proportional in some form: If you get 30% of the votes, you get 30% (or so) of the delegates.

Some Republican Party primaries, including New Jersey, are not proportional but winner-takes-all: If you get more votes than anyone else, you get all the delegates. Others have high thresholds for getting delegates, which has a similar effect.

The general election is also winner-takes-all, for both parties.

The winner-takes-all system gives a substantial advantage to the front-runner relative to the proportional system. The threshold system gives a smaller but still significant advantage to the front-runner over a true proportional system.

Let's take a look at the actual results for New Jersey, shall we?

In the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton received 63% of the vote and Bernie Sanders received 37% of the vote. Clinton got 85 delegates, which is, sure enough, 63% of the allocated delegates; and Sanders got 49 delegates, 37% of the delegates.

In the Republican Party, Donald Trump got 81% of the votes, John Kasich got 13% of the votes, and Ted Cruz got 6% of the votes. But Donald Trump got 100% of the delegates, all 51 of them. Had they been allocated proportionally, Trump would have only gotten 41 delegates, while Kasich would get 7 and Cruz would get 3. Over many states, that difference can add up to a substantial advantage for the front-runner.

You asked about New York specifically though.

The New York primary is also proportional for both parties, but the Republican Party has a higher threshold for delegates. As a result, it behaves more like a winner-takes-all system.

Hillary Clinton got 58% of the votes, and 56% of the delegates. Bernie Sanders got 42% of the vote, and 44% of the candidates. The rounding was actually slightly in favor of Sanders.

While Donald Trump got 60.4% of the votes in New York, he got 89 delegates, which is 94% of the delegates! This happened because only John Kasich beat the threshold for getting any delegates, and only barely, getting 25% of the vote and only 6% of the delegates. Ted Cruz got 14% of the vote but no delegates at all.

It's not quite winner-takes-all like New Jersey, but it's quite close.

What is CH4 and what does it stand for?

CH4 is the chemical formula for methane.

Methane is normally found as a gas, and is the simplest hydrocarbon and one of the most common molecules created by living organisms. It's also called natural gas and can be created when organic materials decay, such as in fossil or oil deposits, or landfills. Methane is also a powerful greenhouse gas.

The "CH4" name is describing the atoms the methane molecule is composed of. C is for carbon, which is usually found at the center of such molecules and is unique in that it has the ability to form four strong bonds, which few other common elements can do. The "H4" represents four atoms of hydrogen, each of which is equally spaced around the carbon in three dimensions, so that the actual molecule looks something like a pyramid.

What are the ideological differences between liberals, radicals, and conservatives?

The first post to this question noted that liberals and conservatives have differing ideas on the role of government. This post specifically addresses their differences on social issues.

Liberals and conservatives have always disagreed on what government should do and how it should do it. In the past, a lot of this disagreement has been based on government spending and military policy. However, in recent years, we have seen an even greater schism between liberals and conservatives on social issues.

Socially, liberals generally advocate for a more inclusive, tolerant society. Issues such as gay marriage, abortion, universal healthcare, and immigration have been keystones of Democratic party platforms and proposals.

Conservatives, on the other hand, usually prefer to maintain the status quo. We see this with their attempts to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, or their opposition to Obamacare legislation. Sometimes they go beyond maintaining the status quo and propose reverting back to a previous condition, as when they consider repealing Obamacare. We have also recently seen a fracturing of conservative ideology along religious lines, with parties such as the Tea Party and the Constitution Party seeking to frame their political views within a religious context. You might consider these parties to the be the more "radical" conservative wing. 

The social aspects of political ideology have become more divisive than ever before. How these divisions are addressed by the existing political parties will have a lot to do with how political power is won and exercised in the future.  

Find the point of intersection of the tangents to the curve `y^2 -3xy + x^3 = 3` at the points where `x=-1.`

Hello!

The steps are: 1) find the tangent points, 2) find the equations of the tangents, 3) find the intersection of the tangents.

1. It is known that `x=-1.` Substitute it to the curve equation and obtain an equation for `y:`

`y^2+3y-1=3,` or `y^2+3y-4=0.`

The solutions are `y_1=1` and `y_2=-4.` So the points of tangent are `T_1(-1,1)` and `T_2(-1,-4).`

2. Differentiate the equation `d/(dx):`

`2yy' - 3y - 3xy' + 3x^2 = 0,` or `y'(2y - 3x) = 3y - 3x^2,` or

`y'=(3(y-x^2))/(2y-3x).`

For `T_1` we obtain that `y'=0.` Thus the tangent is a horizontal line with the equation `y=1.`

For `T_2` we obtain `y'=(3(-4 - 1))/(2*(-4) - 3*(-1)) = -15/(-5) = 3.` Thus the equation is `y=3(x+1)-4 = 3x-1.`

3. The point of intersection has `y=1` and `x` from the equation `1=3x-1,` i.e. `x=2/3.` So the answer is the point `(2/3, 1).`

The graph is at the link.

How do you not take damage in a battle in Pokemon Go?

You cannot take zero damage in a fight.  But you can dodge the attacks and reduce damage taken significantly.  

While you are fighting there will be a yellow screen flash right before your opponent attacks.  When that happens forget everything else, stop attacking, and dodge.  Once you get the hang of dodging you can dodge every attack and make battles a breeze.

Remember that if the servers lag or you have poor reception, you can still take the max damage.  Also there is a time limit: you cannot dodge indefinitely.  But you can still take down a Pokemon with +200cp with ease once you learn how to dodge.

Also remember that you cannot dodge after using a charged attack.  You will take a hit no matter what.  

In what ways did Grandmother India, Danny from the 101st Airborne Division, or Link (a white student) help Melba survive her year at Central High...

Grandmother India helps Melba understand the significance of what she is doing to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. She tells Melba that "God's warriors don't cry" and that Melba is a soldier in the war for justice for African-American people. Her grandmother also tells Melba that she can't cry, even though she is often the victim of harassment and attacks, because God is beside her in her campaign for justice. Her grandmother gives her a sense of meaning during a difficult time and inspires her with her religious faith. Grandmother India also helps Melba realize her own self-worth, and when other students are belittling Melba, she remembers that her grandmother told her that God loves her.

Danny is a soldier with the 101st Airborne Division who is assigned to protect Melba in the halls of Central High School. He helps her when another student throws acid at her, and he saves her from permanent blindness by washing the acid out of her eyes. Though he is not supposed to get personally involved with Melba, he tells her to be brave, and his words inspire her. Finally, Link is a white student who is sympathetic to Melba. When a student is heading towards her, intent on harming her, Link gives Melba the keys to his car and tells her to drive away. Link continually lets Melba know what the segregationists have planned for her so that she can remain safe. Because he cares for her, Melba remains safe and realizes that not all the white students are opposed to her presence at Central High School.

In "Eveline," what is the pattern or structure of the development of the plot?

There are two main sections that develop the plot in James Joyce's short story "Eveline." The first section (which also occupies the most physical "space" within the story) focuses on an interior study of Eveline herself, introducing us to her background, personal history, and inner thoughts and feelings. In this section, we learn that Eveline has to hold down a dead-end job to support her family, as her mother is dead. Eveline also has to do most of the housework, as her alcoholic and abusive father isn't prone to taking care of Eveline or her younger siblings. This section (which appropriately takes place entirely within Eveline's head) illustrates just how "stuck" the protagonist is, as it proves that Eveline has an unfulfilling life devoid of promise. 

The second section, which is much shorter, follows Eveline as she prepares to leave Ireland with Frank, a man she's been dating. However, though leaving with Frank ostensibly offers Eveline a chance to escape her miserable life, Eveline ultimately chooses to stay in Dublin. This section's primary purpose is to show that, despite her former desire to escape her oppressive existence, Eveline is either unwilling or unable to actually act, and so the conclusion of the short story displays just how tragically "stuck" Eveline truly is. 

How do l start applying for law schools? How do I choose the best one for me?

There are several factors to consider when applying for law school. In some ways, these factors may be similar to those you considered when you applied to college for your undergraduate degree.

There are several personal questions to consider which will help you narrow your search. You will need to determine if you can apply anywhere, or if there family factors that may require you to stay closer to home. You need to consider how much you can afford to spend on tuition, and if there is scholarship or grant money available to help you offset the cost. You also need to determine how you feel about the school to which you may apply. Finally, do you have the grades and the scores on the LSAT to get into the law school to which you are applying?

There are questions to consider. What is the reputation of the law school to which you are applying? Do they have a large number of graduates that get jobs when they leave the school? Does the law school specialize in the type of law that you want to practice? What are the chances that the law school will accept you? Will the law school meet your needs?

You also should be very careful when submitting an application. Make sure there are no spelling or grammatical mistakes. Be sure you fully complete the application and provide everything that is required in the application process.

Good luck with your search!!!

Why is the voice in the first line of "The Solitary Reaper" described as thrilling?

There is something beautiful about a simple person whose voice echoes throughout the valley where she works. This is the image Wordsworth gives the reader in the first stanza of this poem. Even though the poet claims the song the girl sings is a "melancholy strain" (6), he also compares her song to a Nightingale (9) and a Cuckoo-bird (14) and claims her song is more beautiful than either. The speaker does not actually know the words that the young girl speaks, and wonders if it is "the plaintive numbers.../ For old, unhappy, far-off things, / And battles long ago" (18-20), but her song stays with him even as he climbs the hill away from the valley and leaves. Perhaps what keeps that song in his heart is the fact that it is a song that speaks to all humans, as all have experienced "Some natural sorrow, loss, or pain, / That has been, and may be again" (23-24).

How would you compare and contrast Sam and Curtis in the novel Seedfolks by Paul Fleischman?

Sam is a seventy-eight year old Jewish man who spends his life promoting peace and attempting to bring different individuals together. Since Sam is too old to work in the garden, he hires and pays a Puerto Rican boy to do the work. Curtis is twenty-eight years old and is known throughout the community for his massive muscles. Curtis begins planting tomatoes to show his ex-girlfriend, Lateesha, that he still has feelings for her. After noticing that some people have been stealing his tomatoes, Curtis gives a homeless teenager named Royce the job of protecting his plants in exchange for some food and a sofa to sleep on. Although Sam is much older than Curtis and they do not share the same race or reasons for working in the community garden, both characters are caring, sensitive individuals. Both characters also help other people in the community by giving them jobs. Similar to how Sam pays the Puerto Rican boy to work in the garden, Curtis gives Royce the job of protecting his plants.

Who is Crooks in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men?

Crooks is an African-American stable hand who lives by himself, isolated from the other ranch hands, in the harness room. Crooks was born in California, where his father had a chicken ranch. Though he grew up playing with white children, his father liked to maintain his distance from white families, as he knew that they would treat him in discriminatory ways. Crooks is used to being the only African-American person around, including on the ranch. He is called Crooks because he is crippled and has a crooked spine. Steinbeck describes Crooks as "a proud, aloof man."

After years of experiencing racial discrimination, he keeps away from others and expects that they will treat him in the same way. He is lonely and occupies himself reading books because he can't play horseshoes with the other men. Lennie befriends Crooks one day when the rest of the men are in town, and while Crooks is at first unfriendly, Lennie's simple manner wins Crooks over. Crooks becomes excited about Lennie's dream of owning his own land one day.

Who was the architect of America's invasion of Normandy?

The chief architect of the Allied invasion was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the European theater. Eisenhower had commanded the American forces that achieved numerous victories in North Africa and Italy, and he was given responsibility for commanding the Allied forces largely due to his organizational abilities and considerable political skills (an important consideration given the presence of American and British generals). The war created an opportunity for Eisenhower, who had not been a particularly distinguished soldier before, to rise through the ranks, and he proved equal to the task of organizing, planning, and supervising the invasion. After the invasion, he led the Allied troops to V-E Day in May of 1945. The success of the invasion, and the ultimate Allied victory, was the major catalyst that swept Eisenhower, a Republican, into the White House in the election of 1952. 

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, what are some similarities between Frankenstein and the monster?

Victor Frankenstein and the monster that he creates are more similar than Victor may want to admit. This is ironic because Victor considers his treatment of the monster a result of his utter repugnance at the appearance and, later, actions of the monster. Ultimately, though, Victor makes the monster be what he becomes. 

Both Victor and the monster are ambitious in the novel. Victor's ambition is actually what leads him to create the monster because he wants to control the line between life and death. The monster later becomes ambitious in his own way when he learns language without any traditional education, only by observing the DeLacey family, and when he seeks out his creator to demand a female companion. 

Most importantly, though, Victor and his monster are both vengeful, and they end up caught in a circular quest for revenge against each other by the end of the novel. Victor wants revenge for the Frankenstein family members and friends that the monster has killed. The monster killed those innocents, though, out of revenge because Victor ignored and abandoned him. 

The monster and Victor Frankenstein can be considered foils, but ultimately they end up mirroring one another in a way that becomes destructive for them both. 

Who is submissive and powerless in Shakespeare's A Midsummers Night's Dream? How and why?

Much has been made of the power/gender dynamics in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, and for good reason: the play largely relies on the interlocking relationships between couples, many of which have unbalanced power dynamics. Generally speaking, the men in the play have power, leaving the women relatively powerless and submissive.

Consider for instance, the men's actions in the play: Theseus and Egeus decree that Hermia must marry Demetrius against her will, while Oberon bewitches Titania in order to force her to obey him. Additionally, the hapless Helena follows Demetrius through the play, begging him to love her. Clearly, the women in the play are denied agency through their relationships with men, as the male characters in the play do not treat them as equals, but use force to deny women power. In short, we can hypothesize that Athenian society within the play is decidedly misogynistic and determined to force women into submission in order to bolster male power.

It's worth noting, of course, that a few elements destabilize this trend. Hermia, for instance, resists Theseus and Egeus and ultimately weds her true love, Lysander. Likewise, Titania offers spirited resistance to Oberon's tyranny and, though she ultimately yields to his wishes, she does not humbly submit. As such, while women can be seen as powerless in the play, it's worth interrogating this idea a little and finding the exceptions to the rule. After all, Shakespeare's work is complex, and it's difficult to name a trend or theme in his plays that is not destabilized in some sense. 

Consumers’ decision making can be reflective of that of a gambler, with regard to their aversion or willingness to take risks. The framing effect...

Framing in psychology refers to changing people's preferences or biases based on the way a question or problem is presented. For example, people in psychological studies have been shown to avoid risk in a positive frame (that is, saving lives) but engage in risks if the frame is negative (that is, people will die or be hurt in some way if a risk is not taken). People regard losses as more significant than gains that are equivalent to the loss.

In the weight-loss industry, Weight Watchers is the market leader, and Jenny Craig is not the market leader. An ad for Jenny Craig that uses the framing effect could emphasize the risks of not joining the program. For example, the first part of the ad could show someone who used Jenny Craig and lost lots of weight, became healthier, and (as these weight-loss programs often emphasize) happier. That person, for example, could be shown getting married or playing with a child. Then, a person could be shown who did not use Jenny Craig. Instead, this person used another weight-loss program and is still not at his or her ideal weight, has health problems, and is afraid to date. The first part of the ad uses positive framing, and the second part of the ad uses negative framing. The second ad could include slogans such as "Don't miss out!" or "You can't afford to miss this chance to join Jenny Craig!" In other words, consumers will be faced with negative outcomes if they don't join. To avoid these outcomes, they will take the risk of switching their preference for other diet plans (or no diet plans at all) and joining Jenny Craig. 

What are Freud's psychosexual stages and what are their implications for various age ranges?

Freud was well known for his theory of psychosexual stages. This theory is a model for human development. Freud was motivated to biologically explain the psychology of humans. The model consists of five stages: oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital. Each of these phases represents a stage in human development. This model is designed around the concept that humans are driven by the gratification of desire. Fixation, or "stuckness" in any one of these stages represents a stunting of normal development.

Stage One: Oral

The oral stage represents the age range from birth to two years old. In this phase, the mouth is the focal point of pleasure. Infants gnaw on things to interact with them, and breastfeed or drink from a bottle. Those who become fixated in this stage may experience nervous tics around chewing, such as gnawing on the end of a pencil. 

Stage Two: Anal

The anal stage represents the ages from two to four years old. In this phase, the anus is the focal point of gratification. During this phase of life, humans learn to control their bowels and their bladders. Fixation in this stage can result in anal retentiveness (Freud's model is the origin of this phrase). One who is anal retentive obsessively holds on to order, such as organization and neatness. 

Stage Three: Phallic

The phallic stage represents the ages from four to seven years old. In this phase, the penis or clitoris is the focal point for gratification. In this phase, humans begin to identify with their mother or father and become sexually motivated as individuals. The relationship to the parent of the opposite sex is central to this stage, and fixation in the phallic stage may lead to a fascination with one's mother or father in an Oedipal or Electra complex, respectively.

Stage Four: Latency

The latent stage represents ages seven through puberty. In this stage, individuals focus on repressing, or making latent their earlier desires. Individuals fixated in this phase may be sexually unfulfilled.

Stage Five: Genital

The genital stage represents the adulthood of the individual. In this stage, humans mature sexually and fulfill their desire to procreate. Individuals who are fixated in this stage may be unsuccessful sexually or frigid to sexual partners. 

Freud's theory of psychosexual stages is one of many models of human development. Like all models, it can attempt only to generally describe a pattern.

In his acceptance speech for the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Luther King Jr. likens his experiences in the Civil Rights Movement to traveling on...

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Martin Luther King Jr. used the timeless metaphor of a road in order to both make a powerful impact on his audience and to make it easy for people to get the meaning of his statements about the Civil Rights Movement. In his speech, he says,

"The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems."

In many ways, this is a metaphor that anyone can understand, whether from Alabama or Oslo. All of us as human beings have walked down a road or a path or a highway, and thought to ourselves that whatever comes along, we have to deal with it; no matter how difficult, we have to keep moving, keep fighting, keep surviving. Because of this shared experience, we are able to connect with Dr. King on a deeper level, and this was his intention for comparing his real-life journey to a metaphorical road.

If we think of the characteristics of a road, we can see clearly Dr. King's motives for choosing this metaphor. Roads become easier to walk down, to navigate, when people walk them together. The same is true for Dr. King's journey. When he was joined by others, he and the millions of blacks fighting for equality in the United States didn't have to fight alone; they had each other. It is torturous at first, yes, and difficult, but because so many people traveled down it first, others will be able to follow more easily. This simple comparison effectively demonstrates to an open audience the power of people working together, walking together in the same direction. The subsequent "widening" and "lengthening" of the road makes room for others to join in the crusade, making it a "super highway of justice." This is both an incredibly powerful and simple to understand metaphor. 

What would be a resistant/alternate reading of the character Friar Laurence in Romeo and Juliet?

Friar Laurence is usually seen as a kindly character who advises Romeo and Juliet, helps them get married, and tries unsuccessfully to avert their tragic fates at the end of the play. There's plenty of textual evidence for this interpretation, and such a reading would not be wrong. However, it's possible to view Friar Laurence in an alternate light. Indeed, the Friar could be blamed, at least in part, for much of the play's tragic happenings. First of all, he's the one who agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet secretly in the first place, and one of the reasons he does so is because he wants to help ease the tension between the warring Montague and Capulet families. Second, he convinces Juliet to drink the potion that makes her appear as if she's dead. As we all know, this potion works, but it also leads to the tragic deaths of the play's protagonists. As such, Friar Laurence might not be as helpful as he seems. 

There are two alternate readings here: first, we could hypothesize that Laurence actively wanted to sabotage Romeo and Juliet's love. While this idea is possible, it's also pretty unlikely; it's hard to read Laurence as entirely evil, no matter how you interpret the text. A more likely interpretation is that Laurence is not a helpful counselor, but is actually an inept character whose attempts to "help" Romeo and Juliet do more harm than good. In this alternate reading, Friar Laurence becomes less of a valuable counselor and more of a misguided fool who is responsible for most of the play's final catastrophe.  

In the book The Light in the Forest by Conrad Richter, is True Son ever able to reconcile his Indian identity with his white identity?

Initially, there is no conflict within True Son. He loathes the idea of going to live with the whites and can only think of the time when he will escape and return to his father Cuyloga and his Lenni Lenape people. He dislikes everything about the whites until he meets his real brother Gordie. The young boy helps True Son to change some of his attitudes toward the whites. When he and Half Arrow kill Uncle Wilse and escape Paxton Township, True Son is glad to be leaving behind the white world with its "plaster walls" and confining clothes. He does, however, feel remorse and an inner conflict about leaving Gordie behind:

His only shaft of regret was leaving Gordie. He could see him in his mind now, lying alone on their wide bed, a chattering squirrel by day, a bed-warming stone by night, only a little minny of a fellow waiting for his Indian brother to return.

This conflict continues when True Son learns in Chapter Fourteen that some of the Indians of the raiding party have taken the scalp of a small child. He had earlier bragged to his white mother that it was only the whites who committed such atrocities. He cannot reconcile what he feels is a breach in the etiquette of his Indian brothers:

But all the time the tender pieces of discarded scalp with long soft hairs the color of willow shoots in the spring kept entering True Son's blood like long worms clotting the free wild flow. He tried to forget what he had said to his white mother, that never had he seen a child's scalp taken by his Indian people.

True Son cannot accept the idea that the Indians, whom he always thought to be noble and above such barbarism, were no better than the whites. This internal conflict finally prompts True Son to act in a way that reveals his feelings for the whites when he signals to the men on the flat boat that they are about to be ambushed. He sees a child about Gordie's age on the boat and cannot go through with the ruse to get the whites to come close enough to shore for an attack. This behavior is ultimately seen as traitorous by the Indians and True Son is eventually abandoned by them and expected to live the rest of his life with the whites. The internal conflict is never resolved. True Son will probably never be happy in the white world and he realizes this in the book's final passage:

Ahead of him ran the rutted road of the whites. It led, he knew, to where men of their own volition constrained themselves with heavy clothing like harness, where men chose to be slaves to their own or another's property and followed empty and desolate lives far from the wild beloved freedom of the Indian.

It is ironic that the honor and morality which is ingrained in him by his Indian father Cuyloga is exactly the reason why he is no longer able to live with the Lenni Lenape. He had learned his Indian lessons too well and could not abide the hypocrisy which was exemplified by the taking of the child's scalp, regardless of motive. 

Why is The Merchant of Venice named for Antonio?

It's difficult to say with definite certainty why Shakespeare chose the name The Merchant of Venice, but it's possible to guess with reasonable accuracy. In general, it's reasonable to assume that The Merchant of Venice is named after Antonio (who is a merchant and is from Venice) because, in many ways, most of the play's plot revolves around him. Consider, for instance, that Portia and Bassanio's courtship relies upon Antonio's help, as the merchant needs to secure a loan to allow Bassanio to pursue the heiress of Belmont. Furthermore, Antonio's inability to repay this loan results in the dramatic conflict with Shylock. In that case, it appears as though most of the play's action depends upon and revolves around Antonio, and so naming the play after him makes sense.

It's very interesting, therefore, that the character that audiences usually find most memorable is not Antonio, but Shylock. Indeed, the marginalized, Jewish moneylender's oppressed existence, along with his arguably tragic downfall, proves to be more engaging, memorable, and sad than anything Antonio does in the play. Therefore, it's understandable that the title of the play is confusing, as it's Shylock, not Antonio, that we remember once the final curtain falls.

`int (cos(3 theta) - 1) d theta` Find the indefinite integral.

`int (cos(3theta)-1)d theta=`

Use additivity of integral: `int (f(x)+g(x))dx=int f(x)dx+int g(x)dx.` `int cos(3theta)d theta-int d theta=`

Since the second integral is easy `int d theta=theta+C` we will concentrate on the first integral. To solve the first integral we will make substitution `u=3theta,` `du=3d theta=>d theta=(du)/3`

`int cos(3theta)d theta=1/3int cos u du=1/3sin u +C=`

Return the substitution.

`1/3sin(3theta)+C`

Therefore, the final solution is

`1/3sin(3theta)-theta+C` 

What is a brief summary of Chapter 13 of The Story of My Life by Helen Keller?

Helen Keller learned how to speak when she was nine years old.  She was very excited about this, because being deaf had made it very difficult for her to communicate in the same way regular people did.  Since she was also blind, traditional sign language would be tricky, too.

Little Helen Keller tells us that before her illness she was learning how to talk.  It was going well, but she was still so young when she got sick that she did not know that many words.  As a baby, she had begun to speak simple words, such as “wa-wa” for water.

I had known for a long time that the people about me used a method of communication different from mine; and even before I knew that a deaf child could be taught to speak, I was conscious of dissatisfaction with the means of communication I already possessed. (Ch. 13)

Although little Helen worked hard to learn to speak, it was difficult for people who did not know her well to understand her.  Her voice was unusual, and not like a hearing person’s voice.  Her pronunciation was different.  She could not hear what she was saying, obviously.

“My little sister will understand me now," was a thought stronger than all obstacles. I used to repeat ecstatically, "I am not dumb now." I could not be despondent while I anticipated the delight of talking to my mother and reading her responses from her lips. (Ch. 13)

Helen also explains in this chapter how she perceived her main method of communication, people spelling into her hand.  She says it was so fast and fluid that she did not perceive individual letters any more than you do as you are writing words on paper.  Thus, hand spelling was "no more a conscious act than it is in writing."  It was pretty efficient.  However, being able to speak was more convenient for communicating with others.

How does Atticus show love towards his children in Part 1 of To Kill A Mockingbird?

Atticus shows love to his children in many ways throughout the book, but perhaps my favorite example of his affection occurs early on in Part 1. When she starts going to school, Scout is told by her teacher, Miss Caroline, that she must stop reading at home, as doing so will "interfere" with Scout's public education. Scout is understandably upset, as reading is one of her favorite activities. However, Atticus shows his love for Scout by affirming that they can keep reading in secret.

This instance doesn't only show Atticus' love for Scout, but also reveals Harper Lee's mistrust of the public education system. Indeed, in this section she suggests that public education often stunts, rather than encourages, a child's intellectual growth, as the curriculum is too rigidly constructed to account for students' diverse learning styles.  

In Monster by Walter Dean Myers, how does Steve act when he is around people in his neighborhood?

There are several scenes throughout the novel Monster which depict Steve Harmon hanging around with people in his neighborhood. Steve Harmon wishes to gain notoriety for being tough and has recently begun hanging out with a group of thugs. Early in the novel, Steve has a flashback to when he was sitting on a stoop smoking a blunt with James King, Johnny, and Peaches. Steve is shy and doesn't say much as the others discuss the ideal place to rob. Johnny doesn't know Steve because he's never seen him before and says, "Since when you been down?" (Myers 56). In another scene, a person named Freddy asks where Steve went to school and Osvaldo Cruz begins to make fun of Steve. Steve tries his best to act tough and threaten Osvaldo, but Osvaldo mentions that he is in a gang called the Diablos. When Freddy comments that Steve hangs with some bad dudes, Osvaldo says, "He don't hang with nobody. He's just a lame looking for a name" (Myers 86).

In other scenes that depict Steve talking with King about the robbery, Steve is rather short and does not speak a lot. Overall, Steve is relatively new to the group of people he's been hanging out with and doesn't speak much. Although he is shy, he tries his best to fit in by smoking blunts and making minor comments. Steve Harmon is simply trying to act cool and make a name for himself by hanging out with tough individuals in his neighborhood.

What is the figure of speech in line four of "The Unknown Citizen" by W. H. Auden?

The fourth line of W. H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen" is the following:

That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint.

In the context of the poem, this line could be viewed as an example of satire. The unknown citizen is described in terms of his conformity to social expectations: he was a satisfactory employee at a factory, had moderate and acceptable reactions and opinions, headed a nuclear family with the correct number children, and owned a number of consumer goods. The social satire in the poem arises from the claim that regardless of whether the man was "free" or "happy," the important aspect of his life was that he lived correctly according to the normative standards of being a good worker and consumer. The use of the word "saint," specified as the modern usage of the word, and claim that the unknown citizen serves the "Greater Community" provide a sarcastic tone to the poem, because these claims are in no way supported by the details provided about him. There is no mention of the unknown citizen serving others, so this suggests that in modern society, conformity is viewed as saintly.

What happened between the English colonists and the Pequot Indians?

In 1637 and 1638, a brutal and destructive war, known to posterity as the Pequot War, broke out between New England colonists and Pequot Indians, native people who lived in modern-day Connecticut. This conflict was essentially rooted in Pequot anger at the expansion of Massachusetts Bay colonists into their lands, but it also resulted directly from trade disputes and, as some historians have argued, the fact that Pequots could no longer play Dutch (in New Amsterdam) and English settlers off of each other due to the increasing power of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In any case, the war consisted of a series of mutual raids until a brutal attack carried out by English and Native soldiers on a Pequot village on the Mystic River in 1637. This resulted in the massacre of more than 400 men, women, and children, and permanently weakened the once-powerful Pequot. They suffered final defeat in 1638, and the Pequot people dispersed, leaving the area forever. 

What is an example of the third-person omniscient narrator in Steinbeck's book The Pearl?

An omniscient or third-person narrator is a voice that tells the story and that knows everything that happens in the story, beyond the knowledge of the characters. For example, when Kino and Juana bring their baby, Coyotito, to the doctor for his scorpion bite, the narrator tells the reader about the doctor: "The doctor had once for a short time been a part of the great world and his whole subsequent life was memory and longing for France" (page 12). This background about the doctor is something only an omniscient, or all-knowing, narrator would know--as it is not necessarily information that the characters who meet the doctor have. 

The narrator also knows how news flows through the town before Kino and Juana do. For example, the narrator says:

"Before Kino and Juana and the other fishers had come to Kino's brush house, the nerves of the town were pulsing and vibrating with the news - Kino had found the Pearl of the World" (page 21).

The narrator has access to the way people are behaving about Kino's discovery of the pearl even before the characters do, as the narrator knows things beyond what the characters know. Many parts of the story are told by the omniscient narrator. 

How can Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness not be viewed as a text that emphasizes the hypocrisy of imperialism?

An effective way to avoid analyzing Conrad's Heart of Darkness as emphasizing the hypocrisy of imperialism is to look at it from a Formalist frame of reference.

Seeing that there is some level of advanced degree work at play here, it might be best to find a literary theory that avoids political, social, or historical considerations when analyzing a literary work. If this is the case, then the best approach to analyzing Heart of Darkness would be to engage in a Formalist analysis of the text. 

Formalism is a literary theory that looks at a work on its own literary merits. When using Formalism, political and historical contexts attached to a literature are devalued.  If Heart of Darkness is analyzed from a Formalist point of view, there would not be an emphasis on Conrad's imperialist opinions. In Formalism, such considerations are not a part of the work's literary condition. Rather, the focus is on a close reading of the text. Formalism's emphasis lies in the analysis of elements such as sentence structure and character development. It looks at the literary forces that help "form" the work as a whole. As a result, Conrad's work can be viewed as a text that does not emphasize the hypocrisy of imperialism. 

An example of a Formalist approach to analyzing Conrad's work and avoiding his stand on the hypocrisy of imperialism would be to look at the literary elements in specific passages. One such passage takes place early in the story:

What saves us [the British] is efficiency — the devotion to efficiency. But these chaps [the Romans] were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conqueror, and for that you want only brute force — nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others.

The Formalist literary theory would examine the polarities established in the passage. The idea of "strength" and "weakness" represents opposing forces, entities that exert influence on the individual. This exertion is a significant part of the novel's characterizations. In the Formalist approach, techniques such as word choice, point of view, and/ or character development would be emphasized. The Formalist approach would avoid Conrad's perceived beliefs on imperialism because such considerations are not focused on the "form" of the work itself. The driving force of the Formalist approach is about the work, not implications arising outside of it. Accordingly, Formalism would allow Conrad's Heart of Darkness to be seen as a work that does not emphasize the hypocrisy of imperialism.

What would be the specific purpose, goals, and objectives of a manager-led team in a human services agency that provides support and services for...

The purpose in a human services agency dedicated to serving individuals with intellectual disabilities is to provide "prevention, treatment employment and support" (e.g., emergency intervention, referral services) in collaboration with other community institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals) as needed by community members (Hanover Community Services). Relevant goals are to connect each individual with the services that are needed in a supportive, timely and appropriate manner. Relevant objectives, which meet the broader service board vision, are to work collaboratively in the community and through partnership with individuals to deliver the help needed through a process that is welcoming, friendly and accessible (Hanover).

Intellectual disabilities are defined as disabilities characterized by "significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior" (AAIDD). The concept of intellectual functioning comprises functions such as problem solving, cognitive competence, reasoning and learning. The concept of adaptive behavior comprises everyday conceptual skills (e.g., money skills, and number skills), social skills (e.g., rule following, personal interactions), and practical skills (e.g., travel, grooming, safety) (AAIDD).

The purpose, goals and objectives applicable to a general human services board, which provides services and support for a broader range of needs (e.g., developmentally delayed infants, drug and substance abuse), are relevant to a community services board that provides support and services for individuals with intellectual disabilities but with defined purpose, goals and objectives focused on and adjusted for the segment of the community population with intellectual disability.

A manager-led team would operate under the same broad objectives that govern the entire board and under the same community-directed purpose, which is to provide prevention, intervention, referral and support. The manager-led team goals would detail specifics relevant to daily operation of the human services center, such as intake, emergency services and referral services. Team members, with special knowledge of differing aspects, would bring knowledge and experience to the team and attain specific steps, milestones and goals defined by the manager and fine-tuned through input of the other team members. Some team goals, among others, would be to provide services and support for independent living skills (e.g., travel, money, grooming), learning skills (e.g., literacy, education) and social skills (e.g., friendships, rule following).

American Association of Intellectual and Development Disabilities (AAIDD).

General Human Services Community Services Boards, Fairfax, VA; Hanover, VA.

National Organization for Human Services (NOHS)

"Developing and Sustaining High-Performance Work Teams," Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

How are Children of Men and Hamlet similar and different in terms of feminist criticism?

Hamlet and Children of Men are similar in that both address the feminist concern of patriarchal hierarchy, which accounts for the domination and power of men over women and over society at large. This domination manifests itself through subjugating women, rendering them powerless and voiceless outside their prescribed roles of nurturing and purity. Hamlet and Children of Men are different in that P. D. James subverts the notion of patriarchal hierarchy by making men physically and intellectually impotent—powerless—and the cause of global society's destruction, both symbolically and literally. In James's fictional world, a new child has not been born for twenty-five years.

In a distilled overview of a few key points, feminist criticism holds that central to literary (and corresponding social) issues is the patriarchal power struggle; men dominate the hierarchical power structure and so dominate women and society. This leads to another key point, which is the marginalization of women. Women spent thousands of years being seen as insignificant and voiceless outside their prescribed and constraining roles as child bearers, child raisers, and nurturers of society. Women's roles introduce another key point—that of the patriarchally requisite and mythic purity of women. This contrasts sharply with the patriarchal view of men for whom battle and struggle against each other for power (in any personal, social or political realm) is accepted as requisite.

In Hamlet, the central problem is the power struggle within the patriarchy of Denmark. The hierarchical struggle manifests principally as Claudius versus the now-dead King of Denmark, Hamlet's father; as Hamlet versus Claudius (uncle and new king); as Laertes versus Claudius (and then versus Hamlet); and as Fortinbras versus Denmark.

Hamlet's hierarchical struggle first manifests as he mixes rage with grief over Claudius' usurpation of the throne and Queen (Hamlet's mother) and, second, as he mixes rage with incredulity, confusion, and indecision after receiving the Ghost's instructions. In the midst of these struggles, the women, Ophelia and Gertrude, are marginalized, manipulated, and disparaged. The main effect on Gertrude is that she questions Hamlet's sanity, representationally questioning the soundness of Denmark's patriarchal order. The effect upon Ophelia is demonstrated in her descent into madness (essentially over grief that the man she loved, Hamlet, senselessly killed the father she loved, Polonius), as well as in her seemingly accidental—though self-inflicted—death: with no resort to voice, her resort was to flowers, games, and childlike songs:

There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
Clambering to hang,
. . . herself
Fell in the weeping brook. . .
Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,
Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay. . .

In the 1992 novel Children of Men, global society is in conflict because men are sterile. James inverts the situation found in Hamlet by making the male patriarchal hierarchy responsible for world collapse: in James' fictional world, since 1995. Worse yet, the patriarchal establishment cannot find out why. Not only is the patriarchal establishment (and all men, as they are adjoined and answering to the establishment) physically impotent, but also men are intellectually impotent to understand why they are impotent.

The women in the novel are still without a powerful official voice—their powerlessness illustrated by Xan Lyppiat, "the dictator and Warden of England," and representative of powers in other "world nation states"— and are blameless. Sperm has become ineffective, not the women's wombs. "Even the frozen sperm stored for experiment and artificial insemination had lost its potency." Nonetheless, the resurgence of old mythology and superstition attributes the loss of potency to women's "witchcraft," the mythological domain of women who reject (or are assumed to reject) the requisite role of purity.

While there is a similarity in patriarchal struggles for dominance and power between Hamlet and Children of Men, James turns the whole hierarchy on its head by making men the powerless and "voiceless" ones because they are the physically impotent ones. James also makes the men intellectually impotent to stop the infertility since it is within themselves, and they cannot understand why their physical impotence is generated. James thereby subverts the patriarchal idea that women, the vessels of purity, are equally the corrupters of society, the supernatural witches of society.

Which figures of speech are in the poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost?

As many scholars and readers have noted, Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" has a decidedly small amount of figurative language. Indeed, the poem is direct and concise, as though the poet wanted to trim down any unnecessary baggage. There are, however, a few instances of figurative language (or, as you say, figures of speech). For example, Frost says "My little horse must think it queer / To stop without a farmhouse near" (5-6), and this line actually contains some very subtle personification. The horse might be acting perturbed by his rider's unexpected change in routine, but he certainly isn't actually mulling the event over in his mind like a human being, or thinking it "queer." In that case, Frost actually uses some slight personification by framing the horse's actions with subtly human characteristics.  

Don't let the brevity of this poem fool you: the piece may be concise, but it communicates a vast array of meaning, much of which has been hotly contested by critics. As such, though "Woods" doesn't employ many examples of figurative language, it's still much more complex than it at first appears. As such, it's well worth reading and analyzing closely.  

What is the best quotation to show Mrs. Dubose's courage in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Mrs. Dubose is a mean old woman.  She insults Atticus one day, and Jem destroys her flowers.  Atticus has Scout and Jem go to read to her every day for a while.  Later, he tells them that she has died. 

Atticus explains to his children that he wanted them to get to know Mrs. Dubose because she was engaged in a great struggle.  She had become addicted to morphine, and she was dying.  Mrs. Dubose wanted to wean herself off of the drug before she died.  Atticus thought this was very brave of her, to do something she felt was worthwhile, even though it was hard. 

According to Atticus, Mrs. Dubose is an example of “real courage” because she stood up to something. 

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do. (Ch. 11) 

Atticus goes even farther, to say that Mrs. Dubose was the bravest person he knew. He wants his children to understand that even though he himself stood up to the mad dog and shot it, which his children were very impressed by, he himself is more impressed with Mrs. Dubose’s actions. 

Mrs. Dubose won, all ninety-eight pounds of her. According to her views, she died beholden to nothing and nobody. She was the bravest person I ever knew. (Ch. 11) 

Atticus wants his children to understand about moral courage because they are going to need it.  Atticus himself is an example of this kind of courage because he is defending Tom Robinson, even though it is unpopular since he is a black man.  Atticus knows that he probably will not win the case, but he is willing to try anyway because he feels that he is doing what is right. 

Scout and Jem will be affected by this case too, he knows.  They will have to learn to stand up for themselves and see the value of what Atticus is doing.  This is why he wanted them to understand what happened with Mrs. Dubose.

When comparing the eastern United States, New Guinea, and the Fertile Crescent, what, according to Guns, Germs, and Steel, caused such a great...

The answer to this question can be found starting on p. 148 of Guns, Germs, and Steel.  There (in Ch. 8), Diamond explains why New Guinea and the Eastern United States were not able to produce as much food as the Fertile Crescent did, even though all of these regions had agriculture.  Diamond tries to show that geographical factors (rather than any characteristics of the natives of these regions) caused the differences in food production.

Beginning on p. 148, Diamond lists three problems with New Guinea’s biota.  First, he says, it was not home to any “of the world’s 56 largest-seeded grasses.”  Because of this, the New Guineans were not able to develop a cereal crop.  Second, there were no large animals in New Guinea.  Because there were no large animals, New Guineans did not have a good source of protein in their diet.  Finally, the root crops that did grow in New Guinea could not grow well at higher elevations, where many New Guineans lived.  These three geographical factors meant that farming in New Guinea was not as productive as farming in the Fertile Crescent, which had many cereals and large animals.  As Diamond says at the end of p. 149, in New Guinea,

food production was restricted by the local absence of domesticable cereals, pulses, and animals, by the resulting protein deficiency in the highlands, and by limitations of the locally available root crops at high elevations.

Beginning on p. 150, Diamond examines the Eastern United States.  He says that it was home to four seed crops and a kind of squash that could be made into containers.  This, he says, is quite good.  However, there were still major problems.  He points out that some of the seed plants had very tiny seeds, which made them hard to cultivate.  Another causes hay fever and skin irritation and has a strong odor that many people dislike.  Because of these problems, agriculture in the Eastern US did not develop much until around 1100 AD, when beans, corn, and squash made their way up from Mexico, giving the Native Americans of the area a truly productive set of crops that they could grow.

In short, the difference in production between the Fertile Crescent on the one hand, and New Guinea and the Eastern US on the other, was caused by the fact that only the Fertile Crescent had wild plants and animals that could be domesticated and could serve as the basis of strong agricultural economies.