In the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, how does his audience shape his rhetorical strategies? What kinds of "common ground" does he...

Douglass, who published his account of slavery in 1845, knows that he can appeal to his white Christian audience through their religious beliefs. Therefore, he uses Christianity as common ground to sway his readers against slavery. Since slaveowners used the Bible, especially the exhortation that slaves should obey their masters, to justify slavery and its cruel oppressions, Douglass highlights the difference between religious hypocrisy and true Christianity which practices an ethic of love and mercy. 

The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the [hypocritical] religious shouts of his pious master.

Douglass insists that no true Christian can support a system as cruel as slavery. 

Douglass uses appeals to the common humanity he shares with his white readers. He knows that he is writing to decent people who wish to know more about the slave experience. In a famous passage, he asserts he is as much a human being as any white man, but contrasts his fate with that of his free audience. This is the language of sentiment or pathos, designed to arouse his audience's emotions and stir his readers to action (to take slaves under a "protecting wing"):

You are loosed from your moorings, and are free; I am fast in my chains, and am a slave! You move merrily before the gentle gale, and I sadly before the bloody whip! You are freedom's swift-winged angels, that fly round the world; I am confined in bands of iron! O that I were free! O, that I were on one of your gallant decks, and under your protecting wing! 

And as the above passage suggests, Douglass uses vivid descriptive language throughout his work to put white readers in the place of the slave, so they can feel concretely, with all five senses, what it is like to be a slave. These are not abstract, logical arguments, such as those often used to justify slavery, but stories that allowed the reader to identify with the slaves. For example, he describes, not in general terms, but in careful detail the whipping suffered by his Aunt Hester from her master:

Before he commenced whipping Aunt Hester, he took her into the kitchen, and stripped her from neck to waist, leaving her neck, shoulders, and back, entirely naked. He then told her to cross her hands, calling her at the same time a d——d b—-h. After crossing her hands, he tied them with a strong rope, and led her to a stool under a large hook in the joist, put in for the purpose. He made her get upon the stool, and tied her hands to the hook. She now stood fair for his infernal purpose. Her arms were stretched up at their full length, so that she stood upon the ends of her toes. He then said to her, "Now, you d——d b—-h, I'll learn you how to disobey my orders!" and after rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cowskin, and soon the warm, red blood (amid heart-rending shrieks from her, and horrid oaths from him) came dripping to the floor.

Douglass understood that his audience valued a woman's modesty and sexual purity and thus points attention to the fact that Hester is an attractive woman with whom the master is probably having sexual relations and also shows the master's brutal disregard for any modesty as he strips her from the waist up to beat her. Douglass knows that this treatment of a woman, from the suggestion of rape to humiliation to inflicting a savage beating, is likely to revolt his audience and create common ground for abolishing slavery. 

In The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin, how do Shevek’s childhood, adolescence, and experiences as a young adult influence his decisions on...

As a child, Shevek had been raised with the Odonian concepts of self-sacrifice, equality, and mutual reliance. It was in babyhood that Shevek first learned about self-denial: his mother, Rulag, had been sent by Divlab to Abbenay. Shevek's father, Palat, was the parent left behind. Essentially, Shevek spent his early formative years bereft of his mother's presence. During his childhood years, he learned that the self was always to be subject to the needs of the community.

Shevek learned to share, but was prohibited from indulging in individualistic discourse (what was called "egoizing" by the director of Shevek's Speaking-And-Listening group). Even though Palat gave his son affection and stability, he was never able to show Shevek what true intellectual and personal freedom looked like.

During his teenage years, Shevek enjoyed mutually stimulating debates with his friends, Tirin, Kvetur, and Bedap. The boys discussed the economic and political divide between Urras and Anarres as well as the lack of mutual discourse between both societies. While Tirin questioned the need to hate and avoid the Urrasti people, Shevek argued that, in an anarchistic society, no conceivable authority could stop the Anarresti from venturing over to Urras, if that was their desire. Anarresti society, after all, was predicated on mutual responsibility and individual freedom, not "the false option of obedience to the law or disobedience followed by punishment."

It is this very spirit of fierce individuality that Shevek brings to his young adult years and beyond. During his time with Sabul (Anarres' leading physicist), Shevek became exposed to Urrasti physics, science that was some twenty or thirty years ahead of anything on Anarres. Tirin's earlier assertion that Anarres could benefit from mutual collaboration with Urras suddenly proved insightful to Shevek. Two events occurred that finally pushed Shevek to explore Urras on his own. The first pertained to Sabul's demand that Shevek not share his carefully honed knowledge of Iotic (the language used in Urras) and Urrasti physics with anyone else. Because of his childhood education in Anarresti ethics, Shevek came to see Sabul's secrecy as a form of selfishness:

Surely freedom lay rather in openness than in secrecy, and freedom is always worth the risk.

The other event concerned his partner Takver's forced departure from Abbenay during a prolonged famine. Like his father before him, Shevek was to know the pain of forced separation and of being eclipsed by the mother of his child. Even as he grieved in his time, Palat had refused to follow after Rulag (due to a lack of career opportunities for him at Rulag's posting); similarly, Shevek made the decision not to follow Takver when Takver was assigned elsewhere. As faithful a parent as Palat was to him, so Shevek became a most responsive and engaging parent to Sadik, his daughter.

Shevek's childhood experiences were foundational to the decisions he made as an adult. He chose to visit Urras because, long ago, he and his friends had dared to entertain the idea that mutual dialogue and collaboration would be beneficial to both Urras and Anarres. Shevek also chose not to follow Takver because of his father's example; yet, it was not only the parental example that deterred Shevek, but also his masculine pride and sense of Anarresti responsibility towards his people that compelled him to seek some answers on Urras.

Why is the idea of a government monopoly on markets through force still popular? Wasn't socialism defeated in the late 80's? Will people ever...

First of all, I have a serious disagreement with the assumptions behind this question.  The question assumes that true socialism, in the form of a government monopoly over the entire economy, is actually a popular idea today. I have trouble with this assumption given that there are very few countries that have this type of socialism. This is not the sort of “socialism” that exists in the Scandinavian countries and it is not the type of socialism that Bernie Sanders advocates.  This question seems to imply that many people would like to see socialism of the sort that existed in the Soviet Union, and that exists today in Castro’s Cuba, or in Venezuela after Chavez.  I do not believe that this is true.

So why, then, do some number of people want some sort of socialism? There are a variety of answers to this. Let us look at some of the more important reasons:

• Inequality of wealth seems to be rising in the rich world.  The wealth of the middle class has largely remained stagnant over the last couple of decades while the rich have gotten much richer.  People are attracted to some form of socialism because socialism promises to reduce this inequality.


• Socialism seems to some to be a fairer and more just system.  In our system, a poor person can work just as hard as a rich person and yet remain poor. This does not seem fair. It does not seem fair that we could have such a rich country in general and yet have some people remain poor and lacking in such basic needs as good healthcare.  Therefore, socialism seems to some like a system that is morally better than our current system.


• Socialism has a more optimistic view of human beings than capitalism does.  Socialism assumes that people will work hard even if they do not have to do so in order to make a living.  Socialism assumes that people will work to help one another, not just for selfish reasons. This is a much more pleasant outlook than the capitalist vision of people who only do things because it is in their self-interest.


• Some people in the United States believe that European countries have succeeded even though they have systems that are relatively social democratic.  Americans who like the idea of democratic socialism feel that it is possible to have a good standard of living without the sort of cutthroat capitalism that we have in the US.

For these reasons, at least some people would like to see more socialism in America.  They largely do not want socialism where the government monopolizes the market for everything as it did in the Soviet Union.  Instead, they want more of democratic socialism which would, they feel, create a more just world without sacrificing too much of our quality of life.  It is not clear that people will "grow tired of" this idea unless it is proven to be wrong through experimentation or until our capitalist system provides outcomes that are more to their liking.

What choices has Tom already made when "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" opens? Why does he choose to risk his life to retrieve the paper?

Tom Benecke has chosen to stay at home and work on his business proposal rather than to go to the movies with his wife. He knows Clare will be disappointed at having to go to the theater by herself, but this will give him an opportunity to have some privacy for three or four hours to concentrate on writing the final draft of his proposal. Although he lives on the eleventh floor of a Manhattan apartment building and his yellow worksheet containing all his accumulated information has blown out the window, Tom persuades himself it wouldn't be a very serious risk to climb out on the narrow ledge to go after it.

It occurred to him that if this ledge and wall were only a yard above ground — as he knelt at the window staring out, this thought was the final confirmation of his intention — he could move along the ledge indefinitely.

It is only because of the dizzying height that Tom would have any difficulty retrieving his paper. Otherwise, it is just a matter of walking a short distance along a ledge and walking back again. All Tom must do is avoid looking down, although in his situation there is a perverse temptation to do so. Looking down could cause him to have vertigo and fall over backwards into empty space. If the worksheet had simply flown off among the Manhattan skyscrapers, Tom could forget about it, but

he saw that the paper was caught firmly between a projection of the convoluted corner ornament and the ledge. 

How could Tom forget about the worksheet when he wouldn't be able to keep himself from looking out the window every couple minutes to make sure it was still there?

Of all the papers on his desk, why did it have to be this one in particular! On four long Saturday afternoons he had stood in supermarkets counting the people who passed certain displays... From stacks of trade publications... he had copied facts, quotations, and figures onto that sheet. And he had carried it with him to the Public Library on Fifth Avenue, where he'd spent a dozen lunch hours and early evenings adding more. All were needed to support and lend authority to his idea for a new grocery-store display method; without them his idea was a mere opinion. 

Time was of the essence. If Tom procrastinated until Clare came home from the movies, she wouldn't dream of letting him climb out the window onto that ledge. She would think he was utterly insane. It would be better not to tell her he had done such a crazy thing, even after he had actually done it. He wants to be working at the typewriter when she returns home so he can casually ask, "How was the movie?" If he didn't get that worksheet tonight, then tomorrow morning he would have to go to the office. When he returns from work in the early evening and looks out the window, the yellow sheet could be gone forever!

Tom does not believe his life is really in danger until he reaches the paper and must look down for a second to get a grip on it with the tips of his fingers.

He saw, in that instant, the Loew's theater sign, blocks ahead past Fiftieth Street; the miles of traffic signals, all green now; the lights of cars and street lamps; countless neon signs; and the moving black dots of people. And a violent instantaneous explosion of absolute terror roared through him. For a motionless instant he saw himself externally — bent practically double, balanced on this narrow ledge, nearly half his body projecting out above the street far below — and he began to tremble violently, panic flaring through his mind and muscles, and he felt the blood rush from the surface of his skin.

Tom didn't believe he was taking any risk when he got out on that narrow ledge and edged his way to where the paper was stuck. After looking down, though, he feels doomed to die. Tom even imagines his body being found on the sidewalk far below and the police looking through his pockets trying to find out who he was.

All they'd find in his pockets would be the yellow sheet. Contents of the dead man's pockets, he thought, one sheet of paper bearing penciled notations—incomprehensible.

How does the poet describe the atmosphere in the poem "The Listeners"?

The atmosphere of "The Listeners" is eerie and quiet.

The speaker directly tells readers that the area is quiet. We are told that the horse eats grasses in silence. We are also told that the traveler's voice and knocking are the only sounds disturbing the "stillness." In fact, "still" and "stillness" are used three times throughout the poem. No movement means silence. Sound is created through vibrations, so no vibrations means no sounds. The quietness of the area is also indirectly described. Readers are told that the house is alone in a forested area. If you've ever been in a thick forest, you've experienced how all of the trees, bushes, grasses, etc. have the ability to muffle sound.

The entire atmosphere of the poem is made eerie by placing the house alone in a forested area. Add to that the fact that the traveler is at the house at night. Forests and night often give readers and audiences foreboding feelings. The eerie feelings are compounded by the silence and the fact that the narrator repeatedly tells readers about "listeners" in and around the house. We have no idea who or what these listeners are, so our imaginations start to come up with all kinds of fantastical possibilities. Most of those possibilities are not calm, logical possibilities, either.

In "A Red, Red Rose" by Robert Burns, why does the speaker say "so deep in luve am I"?

The speaker says this because he's very much in love with his lady, a "bonnie lass." In fact, he's so much in love that he promises to love her even when the seas go dry. Perhaps, through his proclamation, he hopes to make clear to his beloved the depths of his emotion for her.

The whole poem speaks about the narrator's obsession and preoccupation with his lady. To him, she's as beautiful as a red rose in June, and she's like "the melody / That's sweetly played in tune." He promises to love her until the end of time, even when the "rocks melt wi’ the sun and "the sands o’ life shall run." Towards the end of the poem, we discover that the narrator is going away. He bids farewell to his lady love and promises that he will return once more to her, even if ten thousand miles separate them. So, before he goes away on his journey, the narrator basically wants his lady to know how deeply he loves her.

As to whether his words are written to assure his lady or to cement a romantic promise made between both of them, the narrator does not say. 

What does Bluntschli tell Major Petkoff and Sergius about the orders to be given to the officers?

You can answer this question on two levels, the explicit and the implicit. On the explicit level, Bluntschli gives them explicit instructions to tell the men that they must leave at once, and make sure the orders are delivered by the deadline. His words indicate that they should take a threatening, authoritarian tone -- make the men know that any deviance from instructions will result in corporal punishment.

BLUNTSCHLI. You had better both see the fellows that are to take these. [To Sergius] Pack them off at once; and shew them that I've marked on the orders the time they should hand them in by. Tell them that if they stop to drink or tell stories--if they're five minutes late, they'll have the skin taken off their backs.

After Sergius leaves, Bluntschli also asks Petkoff to go after him and make sure the instructions get carried out.

On the implicit level, Bluntschli's words imply his criticism of the way things usually get done by these Bulgarian officers.

Bluntschli is a seasoned, pragmatic, efficient, and professional soldier. He knows from experience that messengers are liable to dally without threat of strict discipline -- perhaps especially after the declaration of peace and the demobilization of many troops. Bluntschli has seen, from observation, that Sergius is full of romantic, unrealistic notions about military matters, and so he thinks Sergius needs this practical advice. Left to his own devices, Sergius is liable to address his men as if they will discharge their orders purely out of honor and devotion to him as their noble superior.

This suspicion is corroborated by Sergius's immediate reply to Bluntschli's instructions:

SERGIUS [rising indignantly] I'll say so. And if one of them is man enough to spit in my face for insulting him, I'll buy his discharge and give him a pension. [He strides out, his humanity deeply outraged].

To Sergius, Bluntschli's approach is insulting, because it presupposes that the men aren't intrinsically motivated by honor and heroic ideals. Petkoff -- favorably impressed by Bluntschli's competence and less obsessed than Sergius with heroics -- doesn't show indignation. He also seems more open to the implicit message. Petkoff has already acknowledged that he is less adept than Bluntschli in the handling of practical military matters.

How has The BFG's life changed by the end of the novel?

The BFG tells Sophie early in the novel that he has been around for so long that he does not remember how he came to be.  He guesses that he simply appeared around the same time that the earth was created.  We learn at the beginning of the novel that his life has been the same for a very long time; he catches dreams, eats disgusting snozzcumbers, and watches glumly as the other giants go off to kidnap and gobble up local children.  He seems somewhat lonely and not particularly happy, but it has been this way for so long that he doesn't seem to be able to imagine any other way of life.

However, things start to change when Sophie enters his life.  She introduces him to new ideas and makes him realize that his life could actually be better.  These changes start out small.  When The BFG tells Sophie how much he hates eating snozzcumbers, she asks him if he really NEEDS to eat it.  He replies, "You do unless you is wanting to become so thin you will be disappearing into a thick ear."  He seems to believe that snozzcumbers are literally the only alternative to eating "human beans".  Sophie opens his eyes, though, by telling him, "We don't have to eat snozzcumbers.  In the fields around our village there are all sorts of lovely vegetables like cauliflowers and carrots."  

These changes become more dramatic when Sophie decides that they simply must do something to stop the giants from guzzling up children.  The BFG has never let a human being see him before because he was convinced that they would lock him away or hurt him, but Sophie convinces him to walk right up to the Queen's window and introduce himself.  She also convinces him to stand up to the other giants, which is something he has always been too afraid to do on his own.  

By the end of the book, The BFG has completely embraced an entirely new way of life.  He is considered a hero by many leaders of foreign countries - is even given an elephant, his most precious desire, by the Ruler of India!  The Queen of England has built him a house fit for a giant right next to her castle, and a small cottage right next door for Sophie.  The BFG even learns how to read and write, and we find out at the end of the novel that he is actually the author of the novel itself!  Nearly everything about The BFG's life has changed, and it appears that he will continue living a very happy life for a very long time. 

What is the significance of Pi's unusual name?

Pi's full name is Piscine Molitor Patel. Pi's parents named him after a family friend of theirs who loved to swim.  Well, that's not exactly true.  The family friend loved to swim and his favorite swimming pool was the Piscine Molitor in Paris.  Instead of naming Pi after the family friend, Pi's parents named him after the pool.  As Pi grew up, he was teased about his name because the pronunciation isn't far off of "pissing" and nobody wants the name Pissing Patel.  Pi simply shortened his name.  Perhaps being named after a friend that loved swimming and pools is a bit of foreshadowing to Pi's survival for weeks and weeks on the water.  Perhaps Pi's act of shortening his name is meant to remind people of the mathematical number.  Pi is an irrational number, and Pi admits at the end of the book that his story might sound irrational, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good story.  

"So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?"

What literary techniques can be found in this quote from The Crucible by Arthur Miller?I look for John Proctor that took me from my sleep and...

Abigail says that quote after John Proctor ends their affair, which Abigail does not want to end. Although John has not touched Abigail for seven months, she claims he still wants her and she wants him. John replies that he thinks of her from time to time but the affair must be over. He tells Abigail to pretend they never had an affair in the first place. 

John is older, making him at fault for taking advantage of the younger, vulnerable Abigail. When she says he "put knowledge in my heart," this is a metaphor about love and experience. Usually, knowledge is said to be in the mind. Since this experience of love is a mixture of knowledge and emotion, though, Abigail says this knowledge is in her heart. It is a way of saying her heart cannot unlearn the affection John showed her. Her heart cannot simply forget. 

The "light" in Abigail's eyes represents the passion she feels for John. Although he started the affair, John now expects Abigail to stop having feelings for him. Abigail is still so taken with John, however, that she cannot do this. Her need for affection shines out of her. This is symbolized by the light in her eyes.

I need a poem that relates to "My Side of the Mountain."

In this book, young Sam Gribley runs away from his home and family in New York City and goes off to live in a large hollowed-out tree in the Catskill Mountains, north of the city. He learns to live off the land. This desire to leave the city and to go to a more natural place can also be found in William Butler Yeats’ poem “The Lake Isle of Innisfree.” The speaker fondly imagines a time when he can move to this isolated and peaceful place. He’ll have a garden to raise beans and a hive to raise bees. He thinks of this place, even as he is in the city and standing or walking “on pavements grey.” But even by the end of the poem, he has yet to move there.

Another set of verses describing a yearning to go to a more natural place can be found in John Denver’s song “To the Wild Country.” Here the narrator feels despondent about the stresses of life, and he dreams of going off to the wilds of Alaska. The chorus says:

To the mountains, I can rest there.

To the river, I will be strong.

To the forest, I’ll find peace there.

To the wild country, where I belong.

Links below will lead you to the text of “The Lake Isle of Innisfree,” as well as to a performance of “To the Wild Country.”

What is Amy Tan's point of view about marriage in The Joy Luck Club?

In Tan's The Joy Luck Club, marriage can clearly cause unhappiness, and women in both traditional and modern marriages are subject to sexism. For example, An-mei Hsu describes the marriage of her mother to a man who already has a wife and two concubines. Her mother is forced to marry because the man rapes her, but she is judged harshly by her own mother for marrying, as her mother thinks that An-mei should spend the rest of her life grieving for her first husband, who dies. An-mei says of her mother, "she married Wu Tsing to exchange one unhappiness for another" (page 48). Because of the sexism of traditional Chinese society, her mother's marriages are unhappy and only bring her unfairness and suffering.

Women in modern American marriages also suffer from sexism. Rose Hsu Jordan describes her marriage to Ted as one in which she was passive and he was the decision-maker. When he pushes her to be the person who makes decisions, she finds the role alien, and when they argue, she describes it as "two people standing apart on separate mountain peaks, recklessly leaning forward to throw stones at one another, unaware of the dangerous chasm that separated us" (page 120). Ted has liked her because she is alien, someone his mother did not approve of, and passive. In the end, however, he rejects her for these qualities.

Similarly, Lena St. Clair suffers in her marriage to Harold. He expects everything to be equal and even divides their expenses, but he does not really treat her equally. Instead, he expects her to play a subservient role in their marriage. Lena accepts this role to be a peacemaker, much as she was during her parents' marriage. Her mother spoke Chinese, and her father did not. They could not communicate well, and neither can Lena and her husband. In her marriage, Lena is what her mother calls a "ghost," a presence that has little power and little say. Her marriage, like that of the other characters, is one in which women are treated as lesser.

Hello, I need help, I cant remember my cell phone pin i set last night. It is a four digit number using numbers 0-9, the only thing i remember is...

Hello!

There are `10^4` pins at all. Denote the set of pins that contain no 1's as `B_1` and that contain no 3's as `B_3.`

We'll use the formula `n(A uu B) = n(A)+n(B)-n(A nn B)` which is true for any finite sets, particularly for `B_1` and `B_3` (`n(())` means the number of elements).

The set of pins that contain 1 AND contain 3 is the complement of those which don't contain 1 OR don't contain 3, i.e. `(B_1 uu B_3)^C.` The number of pins in this set is `10^4 - n(B_1 uu B_3).` By the above formula it is

`10^4 - (n(B_1)+n(B_3)-n(B_1 nn B_3)).`

It is clear that `n(B_1)=9^4` (any number except 1 at any of 4 positions), and `n(B_3)` is the same. `n(B_1 nn B_3)` is the number of pins that don't contain 1 AND don't contain 3, there are `8^4` of those (any number except 1 and 3 at any position).

So the answer is `10^4 - (9^4+9^4-8^4)=10^4+8^4-2*9^4 = 974.`

There are too many variants to try, it is necessary to recall the pin. Try the following trick: imagine that you want to set a new pin, what could it be?

In Letter 7 of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, what is the cruel dilemma about whether the demons should conceal their existence?

In Letter 7, Screwtape writes that the demon race is faced with a "cruel dilemma." Here is the dilemma: "When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and skeptics."

In this letter, Screwtape talks about what he calls "Materialist Magicians," a reference to those who believe in a vague spirituality but who disavow the existence of demons. While Screwtape relishes the idea of deceiving mankind about the existence of demons, he is irritated that doing so costs the demon race the inability to capitalize on and to take credit for acts of "direct terrorism."

Furthermore, when humans disbelieve in demons, the demon race cannot make more "magicians." These "magicians" are human beings who believe in spiritual forces but who refuse to accept the existence of either God or the Devil. In other words, "magicians" reject both traditional religion and secularism. Screwtape prefers people to believe in a vague, magical "Life Force" (a third alternative) so as to be unaware of the danger they're in: "I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy."

On the other hand, when humans believe in the existence of demons, they cannot be made "materialists and skeptics." This means that those who believe in the existence of demons are not so readily trapped in a materialist mindset and are more aware of the machinations of the demons.

To Screwtape, the solution to this dilemma is to get to a point where the people are divided into opposing factions. He relates this to the war effort: Screwtape doesn't care who becomes pacifists or patriots, as long as people forget all about God. He encourages Wormwood to work to create extremes, either from a right-wing or left-wing perspective. The only thing they must guard against is people practicing "extreme devotion to the Enemy" (God).

Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause,” in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favor of the British war-effort or of Pacifism.

This is a difficult passage, but I hope that what I've written is helpful.

What is a brief account of the packing incident in Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome?

As flavoring for the tone of the whole packing incident, J. says he's especially good at packing, and he should do it. Harris and George agree "with a readiness that had something uncanny about it," meaning J. felt something was not quite right. J. of course meant he'd supervise the packing while they packed. They of course meant he'd pack while they watched from lounging positions. J. packed all their personal belongings, from boots to toothbrushes. And it was boots and one toothbrush that he left out. After going through several unpleasant rounds of unpack, repack, unpack, repack, the job was done, with only the soap (possibly) and J.'s tobacco-pouch giving further trouble.

Harris and George thought that after J.'s display of expert packing, they'd better pack the foods and supplies. They had the "big hamper" to pack with these items. J. watched, feeling that "the thing would soon be exciting." They started by breaking a cup, then squashing tomatoes with the jam. Then they packed the pies and "smashed the pies in" with heavy things on top. They spilled salt everywhere then, in turns, stepped on the butter, tried to cram it into the water kettle, sat on the butter, hunted for the now missing butter (until George got a back view of Harris), and finally shoved it into the teapot.

...After George had got it off his slipper, they tried to put it in the kettle. It wouldn't go in, and what was in wouldn't come out. They did scrape it out at last, and put it down on a chair, and Harris sat on it, and it stuck to him, and they went looking for it all over the room. "I'll take my oath I put it down on that chair," said George, staring at the empty seat.

Sitting, at the end of everything, on the lid of the packed, closed hamper, Harris said he hoped nothing "would be found broken," to which George replied that "if anything was broken it was broken." Montmorency performed up to expectations during the packing incident by assuming his cold nose was what Harris's and George's hands were reaching for; by sitting on the very item that was to be packed next; by upsetting the spoons; by putting his leg into the jam and by attacking the lemons in the hamper. Other packing incidents occur as they go along, but this is the central and first packing incident.

Soumik has $5 less than his friend Kofi. If they have $97.50 altogether, how much does each person have?

Hello!

The most clear method to solve this is to denote the variables and to solve the system of equations that occurs. This system is simple!

Let `S` be the amount of dollars Soumik have, and `K` that Kofi have. "Soumik has `$5` less than his friend Kofi" gives us the equation

`S = K - 5,`

and "they have `$97.50` altogether" gives the equation

`S + K =97.50.`

Substitute `S` from the first equation to the second and get

`K - 5 + K = 97.50,` thus `2K = 97.50 + 5 = 102.50,`

and finally `K = 102.50/2 = 51.25 ($).`

Recall that `S = K - 5` and find `S = 51.25 - 5 = 46.25 ($).`

The answer: Soumik has $46.25 and Kofi has $51.25.

`F(x) = int_0^(e^(2x)) ln(t + 1) dt` Find the derivative.

`F(x) =int_0^(e^(2x)) ln(t+1)dt`

`F'(x)=?`

Take note that if the function has a form

`F(x) = int_a^(u(x)) f(t)dt`

its derivative is

`F'(x)=f(u(x))*u'(x)`

Applying this formula, the derivative of the function

`F(x) =int_0^(e^(2x)) ln(t+1)dt`

will be:

`F'(x) = ln(e^(2x)+1)*(e^(2x))'`

`F'(x)=ln(e^(2x)+1)*e^(2x)*2`

`F'(x)=2e^(2x)ln(e^(2x)+1)`

Therefore, the derivative of the given function is `F'(x)=2e^(2x)ln(e^(2x)+1)` .

Who took Sir Simon to the "Garden of Death"?

Virginia Otis takes the ghost of Sir Simon to the "Garden of Death."  

In part five of the story, Virginia Otis is speaking with Sir Simon.  He explains to her that he is so very tired and wants to sleep.  Virginia, in her innocence, explains that sleeping easy.  

"That's quite absurd! You have merely to go to bed and blow out the candle. It is very difficult sometimes to keep awake, especially at church, but there is no difficulty at all about sleeping. Why, even babies know how to do that, and they are not very clever."

Sir Simon explains that he hasn't slept for three hundred years, and Virginia asks him where he could go to find sleep.  Sir Simon tells her about a garden where he can find sleep.  The garden is the "Garden of Death."  Sir Simon explains that in order for him to get there and find eternal rest, he needs Virginia's help.  She must pray for him and weep for his sins.  Sir Simon will be granted access because a pure girl is escorting Sir Simon.  Virginia agrees to do this for Sir Simon, and together they enter another ghostly dimension of sorts where the "Garden of Death" can be found. 

What are the advantages of a market economy?

The major advantages of a market economy are that such an economy provides the greatest personal freedom for its people, gives them with the greatest possible variety and quality of goods and services, and offers those goods and services at the best possible price. By doing these things, the market economy allows a country to be richer and freer than it otherwise would be.

In a market economy, people have the right to do more or less with their property as they wish. The government allows people to start businesses doing whatever they want (outside of illegal things like drug dealing). It does not tell them what they must do with their money and it does not create companies of its own that prevent private enterprise from growing. If we believe personal freedom is good, then a market economy is better than other types of economies because it allows people to be free to do whatever they want with their property.

When people are able to do what they want with their property, consumers benefit. When entrepreneurs are free to create businesses, they will try to figure out what consumers want to buy so they can make money by supplying those goods or services. For example, Apple created smartphones because it thought it could make money selling them. Because Apple was free to do this, consumers around the world have benefited from the use of smart phones. 

In a market economy, products will be made at the best possible combination (or combinations) of quality and price.  Companies will compete with one another for customers. If the quality of Apple’s smart phones cannot keep up with that of another company, Apple will lose market share. The same is true if Apple’s phones are just as good, but are more expensive. When companies compete, they force one another to provide the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices. This is much better for consumers than an economy in which (for example) one government-owned monopoly provides all telecommunications services and therefore does not have to worry about satisfying customers more than a competing company.

In these ways, market economies have definite advantages.  These economies allow greater personal freedom while simultaneously providing consumers with more goods and services that are high quality and as inexpensive as possible.

In "A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman, do you think that the narrator is envious or jealous of the spider? Why?

It does seem, perhaps, that the speaker of Walt Whitman's poem "A Noiseless Patient Spider" is somewhat envious of how the spider is able to "tirelessly" and constantly launch filaments that are able to catch onto something.

The controlling metaphor of Walt Whitman's poem is that of the soul being likened to the spider as it is "seeking the spheres to connect them." Much like the spider, the soul casts filament after filament in an effort to find meaning and a sense of the divine. But, the patient spider seems more successful in its venture of launching "filament, filament, filament."

Certainly, the soul's task is more difficult and more complicated. The soul is

Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,
Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold,...

In Whitman's poem, much like the spider, man also finds his realm beginning within himself. But, unlike the spider, who engages in the daily spinning of his webs, the soul that reaches out must generate an essential, yet extraordinary anchor that can hold because such casting is not part of man's mundane world; it is, instead, a transcendent experience.

How should I go about writing an essay on a literary group in British poetry?

One possibility is to write about the Romantics, who included the poets William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lord Byron, William Blake, John Keats, and others. The movement is considered to have begun when Wordsworth and Coleridge published Lyrical Ballads, a collection of poems, in 1798. Their focus was on rejecting reason in favor of emotion, and they also focused on the subjective experiences of the individual. Many of their poems, such as those of Wordsworth, concentrated on finding inspiration in nature, in reaction to the growth of cities during Industrialization in England. William Blake's poems, for example, in Songs of Innocence and Experience, contrasted the corruption and dirtiness of London with the purity and innocence of the countryside. Rural areas were seen as an outgrowth of the purity of nature. In addition, Blake (who is also seen as a Pre-Romantic) and several of the other poets celebrated youth as a time of inspiration and innocence, as opposed to the corruption of adulthood. 

In "The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse" by William Saroyan, did John Byro know the boys had his horse?

Using evidence from the text, the reader can find indications that John Byro suspected the boys had his horse in “The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse” by William Saroyan.

John Byro was not part of Aram and Mourad’s Armenian family. He was a lonely man who learned the Armenian language in order to communicate with and relate to the family. One day, after his horse was gone for a month, Byro walked ten miles to visit with Aram’s mother and uncle. He explained that his horse was missing, which rendered his surrey useless. The uncle becomes animated and tells John Byro to pay no mind to his missing horse. If a man walks ten miles just to have coffee and a smoke but brings up his missing horse in conversation, it is a good indication there was more to his visit than just a friendly discussion.

Then another visitor arrived, a farmer named John Byro, an Assyrian who, out of loneliness, had learned to speak Armenian. My mother brought the lonely visitor coffee and tobacco and he rolled a cigarette and sipped and smoked, and then at last, sighing sadly, he said, my white horse which was stolen last month is still gone. I cannot understand it.

Another indication that John Byro knows the boys have his horse arises when the boys meet the man as they are walking with the horse. As he closely examines the horse, he tells the boys the horse they are walking seems to be a twin to his horse. Yet, he never insists the horse is his or turns the boys in for having the horse. Byro understands the family’s honor and knows that once the boys are cornered, they will return his horse, which they do.

I could swear it is the horse that was stolen from me many weeks ago. May I look into its mouth?

Of course, Mourad said.

The farmer looked into the mouth of the horse.

Tooth for tooth, he said. I would swear it is my horse if I didn't know your parents. The fame of your family for honesty is well known to me. Yet the horse is the twin of my horse.

Why does Helen Keller begin her story with these words: "It is with a kind of fear that I begin to write the history of my life"?

Helen Keller begins her story with these words because she harbors doubts about her ability to tell her story accurately.

Helen confesses that, from where she stands, "fact and fancy look alike across the years that link the past with the present." It is quite often the case that the child's impression of events differs from that of the adult's. Helen admits that "the woman paints the child's experiences in her own fantasy." She is perhaps alluding to the fact that it is difficult to accurately represent events from long ago. Either the "joys and sorrows of childhood have lost their poignancy" to the adult mind or the "many incidents of vital importance in...early education have been forgotten in the excitement of great discoveries."

What Helen means is that, at present, she is as much afraid of idealizing her past as she is of being inaccurate in her narrative as she tells her story. Last, but not least, she doesn't want her story to bore her readers, so she says that she will "try to present in a series of sketches only the episodes that seem...the most interesting and important."

Why is DNA important?

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is important as a genetic code in a living organism.

Humans are not the only creatures with DNA. Plants have DNA, animals have DNA, and even fungi and bacteria have DNA. 

DNA as a molecule is really a code that the cell can read, containing all of the information that governs the body. Cells can read this code to determine the structures the cell will build and destroy, and how long the cell should wait between different actions.

Mutations are really changes in the code of an organism's DNA. When DNA is altered, the cells will change how they are built.

DNA is the most likely originator of viruses, and is used by viruses to replicate.

DNA is especially important in the study of genetics and medicine, as it can be responsible for many ailments.

Can John Rawls' Theory of Justice be applied to U.S. healthcare reform without violating HIPAA laws?

John Rawls highlights two central principles about equality in his book A Theory of Justice:

One, that each person should have equal rights to the most extensive liberties consistent with other people enjoying the same liberties; and two, that inequalities should be arranged so that they would be to everyone’s advantage and arranged so that no one person would be blocked from occupying any position. 

If legislatures adapted them as part of U.S. healthcare reform, it does not seem like these principles would violate personal HIPAA laws. The reform would most likely result in a universal healthcare model and truly affordable healthcare for every individual. It could even create a “pay what you can” model, entrusting citizens to intuitively and fairly create their own pricing for doctor’s visits, surgeries, or other emergencies. What an individual decides to pay in this model and what care is provided is still private and upheld under HIPPA. Rawls’ Theory of Justice would definitely be a complicated puzzle to apply to healthcare reform, but its core tenants do not seem to violate individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

Which places did the three men visit and what did they do there?

The three friends – George, Harris, and narrator J. – go on a boating trip along the River Thames in England. Heading upriver, they pass every town between Kingston and Oxford, and leave the boat on occasion. Heading back downriver, they leave the boat at Pangbourne, which lies between Streatley and Maple-durham, and take the train back to London.

J. and Harris begin the expedition at Kingston, then have lunch at Kempton Park. They pick up George at Weybridge. They spend the first night tied up at “Picnic Point,” somewhere past Staines. The second day, they go to Magna Carta Island, have lunch below Monkey Island, and spend the night in Marlow at the “Crown.” In Marlow, on the third day, Montmorency has an encounter with a cat. The men also go grocery shopping here. They get back in the boat and have lunch near Wargrave. At Sonning, they get out and walk around the village. They spend the night on one of the Shiplake islands. George and J. go to Henley after supper. On the fourth day, they pass Reading. They spend two days in Streatley and get their clothes washed here. George and J. go to an inn and hear the stories about a mounted trout on display. The next night has them in Culham. Then they proceed on to Oxford, where they spend two days. They begin their return trip downriver, but it rains for two days, and everything is wet. They leave the Thames at Pangbourne.

A link below provides a general map of the river and its larger towns. You can see Kingston and Oxford, and some of the other points mentioned in the book. Not all of them are large enough to be shown on this map.

What are the properties of language?

In form and function, language varies widely across space and throughout time. That being said, six key properties of language have been described by linguists. These six features are arbitrariness, cultural transmission, discreteness, displacement, duality, and productivity.

Arbitrariness of language is the fact that the symbols we use to communicate meaning to not have any natural form or meaning in and of themselves. For example, all of the words you are reading right now do not have a natural essence to them, but we have assigned these words to their particular meanings. The word table is not a table itself; rather, it is a word we have agreed means or signals for the idea of a table. Onomatopoeia differ somewhat in their arbitrariness, because these are words which replicate the sounds they describe. The word "plop" is intended to replicate the sound plop.

Language is both acquired by and continues the process of cultural transmission. Humans are not born with an innate understanding of communication in the way that birds or lions are. We must learn, along with other elements of culture, how to communicate with others using language.

Discreteness in language describes the fact that human language is composed of sets of distinct sounds. One sound on its own may convey one meaning, multiple sounds combined in a particular order convey a different meaning. Even repeated sounds have a particular meaning! 

Displacement of language refers to the ability of human language to communicate throughout time and across space. In animals, language is primarily an exchange between stimulus and response — the meaning conveyed by animal language only works in context. When a dog barks, it is in response to whatever prompted the barking, and that bark can't really be used to express its meaning before or after the event. In human language, however, we are able to talk about things that happened a long time ago or have not yet happened. We might even read books produced hundreds of years ago and be able to make sense of them.

Duality describes the human ability to produce language in multiple forms. We can both write the word table and say it out loud, with both evoking the same idea of a table. 

Productivity is a feature of human language which enables us to combine symbols (words, sounds, phrases) in new ways to express particular ideas. In my studies of the evolution of language, I heard an example that I think really expresses the nature of productivity. The form of language for our closest evolutionary cousin, the chimpanzee, is very fixed. Only one meaning can be conveyed at a time and it is in response to stimuli. If a chimpanzee were to come across a very tasty-looking bunch of bananas that were unfortunately on fire, instinct would determine how the chimp would call to its troop. The chimpanzee would either have to produce the call which implies food is available for eating, or the call to warn others of danger. The chimp might be able to create the "food" call immediately before or after the "danger" call, but they cannot combine them to express the idea that food is on fire. If we, as humans, came across the same flaming bunch of bananas, we would be using productive language in telling our friends that there are some flaming but otherwise tasty-looking bananas nearby.

In Maniac Magee by Jerry Spinelli, what kind of career does Grayson have in the Minor Leagues? How does Grayson appear different when he tells...

Grayson had experienced a fairly long career as a Minor League Baseball player.  He had played as a pitcher on several different baseball teams.  He had once had a chance to impress a scout for a team that was "one short step from the Majors" (Maniac Magee, Chapter 25).  Instead of impressing the scout, Grayson had pitched a horrible game.  His chances of someday playing Major League Baseball were over.  He continued to play on Minor League teams until he was about forty.  His last team was in Mexico.  The years had left him unable to play with the necessary skill.  He retired from baseball, and became a janitor.

When Grayson told Maniac Magee that he had been a pitcher in his younger years, the boy was shocked.  Maniac had never expected Grayson to reveal such a secret.  Grayson was not a "rickety, whiskered worm chow" (Chapter 25).  Instead, he had been a baseball pitcher for many years.  Maniac was in awe.  He begged Grayson to tell stories from his baseball days.

Can a child's blood type be B+ if the mother has an O- blood type and the father has an O+ blood type?

There are two parts to how we commonly type blood: the part that deals with antigens (the part of blood type that is A, B, AB, or O) and Rh factor (the positive or negative after the letters). The antigen portion of the blood type says what antigens the blood cells have or don't have. A has A antigens, B has B antigens, AB has both A and B antigens, and O has neither antigen. For the Rh factor, it is either present (positive) or not (negative). A parent can only pass down an antigen and Rh factor they possess. Parents with AB blood can pass down either the A or the B marker.

In this specific case, neither parent has either antigen, so a child would have to have an O blood type. For the child to have a B blood type, one parent would have to have either AB or B as their blood type. The Rh factor is similarly passed down. For the child to be Rh positive, there would have to be an Rh positive parent. It would be impossible for an O- mother and an O+ father to have a child with B+ blood. The only possible blood types for these parents would be O- (only possible if the father had an Rh negative gene) or O+.

A line passes through the point `(10,-2)` and forms with the axes a triangle of area of 9 sq units. Find the equation of the line.

Hello!

Denote the slope of this line as `m.` The vertical line (which has an undefined slope) doesn't suit us, so we'll not miss a solution. Horizontal line with `m=0` doesn't suit also, so we can divide by `m.`

The equation of such a line is `y = m*(x-10) - 2.` The triangle formed with this line and the axes is a right one (because the axes are perpendicular to each other). So its area is `1/2 * |OX| * |OY|,` where `O` is the origin, `X` is the x-intercept of the line and `Y` is the y-intercept.

The y-intercept is `y(0) = -10m-2.` The x-intercept is the `x` for which `y= m*(x-10) - 2=0,` so it is `2/m+10.`

Thus our equation for m becomes

`1/2 |(-10m-2)*(2/m+10)| = 9.`

It is the same as `|(5m+1)*(1/m+5)| = 9/2,` or `|1/m (5m+1)^2| = 9/2.`

If we suppose `m` is positive, then it becomes

`(5m+1)^2 = 9/2 m,` or `25m^2+10m+1=9/2 m,` or `25m^2+11/2 m +1=0,` or `50m^2+11m+2=0.` This equation has no solutions.

Well, what about negative m's? The equation becomes `(5m+1)^2 = -9/2 m,` or `25m^2+10m+1=-9/2 m,` or `25m^2+29/2 m +1=0,` or `50m^2+29m+2=0.`

The discriminant is `D = 29^2-4*50*2 = 29^2 - 20^2 = 9*49,` so `sqrt(D)=3*7=21.` The solutions are `(-29+-21)/100,` `m_1 = -50/100=-1/2,` `m_2 = -8/100 = -2/25.` And both are negative as supposed.

Uff. There are two possible equations, `y=-1/2(x-10)-2=-1/2x+3` and `y=-2/25(x-10)-2=-2/25 x-6/5.`

What is the main idea of Silent Spring?

The main idea of Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson, in 1962, was that pesticides were harming the environment and wildlife, particularly birds. She focused on the pesticide DDT, which was first made in 1874 but was used extensively during World War II as a way to control diseases such as typhus and malaria where troops were stationed. Carson presented research that pesticides can accumulate in animals' bodies through a process called bioaccumulation and can cause cancers and other ill effects. She also presented research about the ways pesticides harm the environment and stated that overly relying on pesticides would be ineffective, as it would lead to the development of resistance on the part of the insects, resulting in even larger populations. Carson claimed that the industry that manufactured pesticides had tried to cover up the harmful effects of their products. Her book led to the birth of the modern environmental movement and a ban on DDT for use in agriculture.