In Lord of the Flies, how did the choir boys, Ralph, and the other boys get separated? Why did the choir boys not look like they had just been...

Golding does not spend a great deal of time describing the actual events of the plane crash, so it is difficult to know exactly what happened prior to the boys coming out of the jungle for the first meeting.

It is clear that the plane broke into pieces, according to the conversation between Ralph and Piggy. It is also clear that at least one piece of it hit the island and made the "scar" in the jungle. During the crash, it is also clear that the boys were separated, either thrown out of different parts of the plane or perhaps they simply scattered when the plane hit the ground.

The choir boys somehow managed to save their "togs" and Jack forces them to put these on before they march to the meeting in formation. The uniformity allows them to appear as though they'd just come from a performance rather than coming out of the jungle following a plane crash.

what are some of the characteristics of Laurie in "Charles"?

Laurie essentially is an undisciplined, disrespectful, deceitful, conniving, but clever and very intelligent child.

From the exposition of the story, it becomes apparent that Laurie is undisciplined and willful as he "renounced" his baby overalls and is now a "swaggered character" who no longer waves good-bye to his mother. When he returns home the first day he slam[s] the door open and shouts with a "raucous" voice, "Isn't anybody here?"

Yet, the parents are surprised to learn of a boy named Charles who is purportedly "fresh" when he speaks to his teacher, and then even strikes her. (Laurie smiles as he relates this.) One day when Laurie recounts that Charles has let the seesaw hit the head of a little girl, the mother naively asks her husband, "Do you think kindergarten is too unsettling for Laurie?" In another instance of irony, Laurie returns from school late, "yelling" all the way as he comes up the hill toward his mother that

"Charles yelled so in school they sent a boy from another class to tell the teacher to make him be quiet, and so Charles had to stay after school."

Laurie finally becomes so willful at home that his mother states,

Laurie did a Charles when he filled his wagon full of mud and pulled it through the kitchen....

And, yet, Laurie's parents are still deceived about their child. Even after he tells them that Charles prompted a girl to say an offensive word in school, and then says the same word at home himself some days later, the parents do not make the connection.  Indeed, there is no question that Laurie is far more clever and creative than his gullible parents who must be told by Laurie's teacher that there is no Charles.

What is the ecological group of cervidae, cestoda, and euphorbia? What is their relationship to humans?

First of all, what are these organisms? These Latin names may be unfamiliar.

Cervidae are more commonly known as deer.

Cestoda are a genus of flatworms which includes tapeworms.

Euphorbia are a large genus of flowering plants called spurges. The one you're probably most familiar with is poinsettia.

Deer are herbivores; they are near the bottom of the food chain and get their energy directly from plants, which get it from the sun. This makes them ecologically consumers. As far as their relation to humans, we mostly consider them a nuisance, but many people kill them for food (acting in one of our many ecological roles as a predator, which is another type of consumer).

Cestoda are parasites; they live inside other organisms, chiefly other animals, and skim off resources from their hosts. This makes them also consumers. Some, such as the beef tapeworm, can infect humans, usually via the animals we eat.

Euphorbia on the other hand are photosynthetic, like most plants. They depend upon animals for their pollination (that is what flowers are for), but they get their energy from the soil and the sun. This makes them ecologically producers. While humans depend on many flowering plants for food (particularly fruit), most of the plants we tend to eat aren't Euphorbia specifically. There are a few herbs in this genus, as well as some decorative plants such as poinsettia, but not much in terms of plants we would regularly consume, likely because Euphorbia typically produce latex, a milky, irritating sap. (Not to be confused with rubber latex, which is produced by rubber trees, which are actually Ficus and not Euphorbia.)

Does Nicola find Major Petkoff's old coat in the blue closet?

I think the answer is probably "no." Nicola only pretended that he'd found it there in order to please Catherine.

The question refers to one of the farcical moments in the play. Major Petkoff and Sergius don't know that Raina and Catherine gave Major Petkoff's coat to an enemy soldier, and the women want to keep them ignorant of that fact.

The soldier has come to return the coat to Catherine. It's in a carpet bag. But before Catherine has the opportunity to sneak the coat back into the closet -- so her husband will never be the wiser -- she is interrupted.

Where was the coat when Nicola was sent to fetch it from the closet?

Before the crucial scene in question, the last known location of the coat was inside the carpet bag. At the end of Act II, Nicola is ordered to take this bag away -- presumably to deposit it, unopened, in a foyer or cloak room. Neither Catherine nor Bluntschli has told Nicola what's inside the bag, and as far as we know, nobody else does. Everyone -- Catherine, Bluntschli, Petkoff, Sergius, and Raina -- heads to the library together. Thus, it's not clear that Catherine has the opportunity, at any point, to speak privately with either of her servants.

So it seems very doubtful that the coat had been in the blue closet when Nicola was ordered to get it in Act III. Nicola, or his fellow servant, Louka, would have had to have transferred it there earlier, and as far as we can tell, they had no reason to do so.

What seems more likely is that Nicola -- who is a quick thinker and good at intuiting what Catherine wants -- figured out that the coat was in the carpet bag. Louka, who knew about the secret visit of the soldier, may have shared this background knowledge and helped him reach the conclusion that Bluntschli had come to give Catherine back the coat. So when Catherine ordered Nicola to retrieve the coat from the closet, he took the hint. He fetched the coat from the bag, but reported to the company that he'd found it in the blue closet. This was the story Catherine wanted him to tell, and Nicola clearly decided that it was in his interest to take her side.

What is Charles Dickens' story A Christmas Carol about?

A Christmas Carol tells the story of Ebeneezer Scrooge, a cold and mean-spirited bachelor who shuns society in favour of personal wealth. As Christmas approaches, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his dead business partner and only friend, Jacob Marley, who tells him that he must reform his character before it is too late. Marley also informs Scrooge that he will be visited by three ghosts, whose purpose is to teach him the true meaning of Christmas.

As Marley promised, Scrooge is visited by three ghosts: the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. During their visits, Scrooge relives the painful experiences of youth, like the loss of his fiancée, and learns how little he is liked by those around him, like the family of his nephew, Fred. He also sees a glimpse of his future, in which he dies alone and thieves steal his possessions. Inspired by these experiences, Scrooge transforms his character, as Dickens explains:

He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.

A Christmas Carol thus teaches the reader that friendship and family are more important than personal wealth and, significantly, that it is never too late to become a better person.

What does `q^2` represent in the equation `p^2+2pq+q^2=1` ?

The equation you are working with is the Hardy-Weinberg equation, and it is used to study populations of organisms and how they are evolving. It is most useful when studying genetic traits that are controlled by two alleles, one being dominant and the other being recessive. Each variable, `p` and `q` represents the frequency of an allele in a population. `p` represents the frequency of the dominant allele, and `q` represents the frequency of the recessive allele. Because these two variables represent the entire gene pool for a certain trait in the population, `p+q=1` . 

By squaring both sides of that equation, we get the Hardy-Weinberg equation, `p^2+2pq+q^2=1`  . With this equation we can look at individuals in a population. `p^2`  represents the frequency of homozygous dominant individuals, `2pq`  represents the frequency of heterozygous individuals, and `q^2`  represents the frequency of homozygous recessive individuals. 

Let's look at an example. Suppose that in a population of mice, black fur is dominant to white fur. In this population of mice, 16% are white. This means that `q^2=0.16` . So, `q=0.4`  and `p=0.6` . Putting these back into the Hardy-Weinberg equation, `p^2=0.36`  and `2pq=0.48` . So, of the black mice, 36% are homozygous dominant and 48% are heterozygous. 

` `

Why is Charles Dickens's novel Great Expectations more interesting because it is written in the first person point of view?

A lot of readers prefer novels written in the first person perspective because they believe it is more interesting.  It is an interesting way to write a novel because it allows the author to build greater character development for a single character.  Readers really get to understand the narrating character because everything is from that character's perspective.  We get to see every action made, and we know about every thought that happens.  

Additionally, a first person perspective can really draw a reader into the story.  It does this because a reader can't help but project their own body/mind into the narrator's position.  The narrator uses the words "I" and "me" to tell a story.  When this happens, I (me personally) am drawn into that character much more so than if the narrator used "he."  I'm not as invested in a character if I'm not a part of that character.   That is probably why I enjoy first person video games so much.  They make me feel like I am the character and in charge.  

Furthermore, first person narration is interesting because it doesn't explain everything.  There is so much that is unknown.  Because Pip is telling the story, I know his thoughts; however, I can't know another character's thoughts unless he/she speaks them.  There is so much that is hidden from the reader, so I find myself always wondering what a new character's motivations are.  Is this person lying?  Is this person really trying to help Pip?  Things like that can't be known until the other person says something or does something.  A greater sense of tension can be built with first person narration, and that is why I find it a very interesting point of view.