Where is Rosicky at the beginning of the story?

At the beginning of “Neighbour Rosicky,” the title character is in a doctor’s office in town.  Our first clue is in the line, “Doctor Burleigh swung round in his desk-chair….”  This is further substantiated by the doctor’s actions:  he writes Rosicky a prescription, and examines a stethoscope; and when Rosicky places the doctor’s fee “behind the desk-telephone.”  The doctor has informed Rosicky, an old friend, that his heart is weakening, and warns him against any intense physical activity on the farm.

When Rosicky leaves the doctor’s office he lingers in town to run some errands, going to the hardware store and to a general store to pick up some fabric for his wife to make pillows and quilts out of.  Here, his interactions with his favorite store clerk are further clues as to just how liked Mr. Rosicky is in town, and how pleasant a character he is to talk to.  These early actions therefore do not only provide a hint to the overall setting of the story, they also provide a solid characterization for Mr. Rosicky and set everything up early-on for the central conflict of the story.

Could one argue that Mark Twain is viewed as a one dimensional person?

A. Mark Twain is viewed as a one dimensional person.

Incorrect; one-dimensional implies shallow and that there is "not much to him." Mark Twain is known for being complex, from his multiple names or personas to his using animals or innocent characters to express profound ideas about society.

B.Mark Twain's writings are primarily about animals.

Incorrect; only a few of Twain's stories were about animals, and he used these to shed light on human behavior, though using the guise of animals, as Aesop did in his fables.

C.Mark Twain was a fan of imperialism and spoke about it. 

Incorrect; Twain was known to be an anti-imperialist and often shared this view in his work.

D.Mark Twain was known for more than being funny.

CORRECT; though Twain was well-known for his humor, his writing is also rich in imagery, profound opinions on society and the human race, political activism, and strong characters.

What happens to the original cell's chromosomes during fission?

Fission or binary fission is a process of cell division, used by single-celled organisms (also known as prokaryotes). This division is a form of asexual reproduction and results in a genetically identical offspring. Prokaryotes contain a single DNA molecule. During the fission process, replication of this DNA molecules occurs and the cell ends up with two copies of DNA molecule. These molecules are separated and are attached to different parts of cell membrane. This part of fission process is followed by actual cell division into two daughter cells. Each daughter cell ends up with one DNA molecule. Thus, each daughter cell is identical to the parent cell in all respects and the number of chromosomes are same in both the parent and daughter cells.

In comparison, eukaryotes undergo sexual reproduction.

Hope this helps. 

Who is a leader?

As described in a top-leader overview by David K. Williams published in Forbes in 2012, a leader is a person who shows specific—yet varying—characteristics. These characteristics include, among others, foresight and innovation; courage and wisdom in the face of a failing business or marketplace; respect for employees' talents and contributions; respect for the potential for and the outcomes of risk-taking; embracing hard work and sharing good fortune; and confidence in one's own vision and dream.

The textbook Leadership: Theory, Application, and Skill Development answers "Who is a leader?" by stating the five categories of leadership traits and skills that define who a leader is.

1. Having the dual role to influence and to be influenced by followers (influence needs to go both ways in order for leaders to think about complex problems with expansiveness and clarity).


2. The actual act of influencing: followers are less effective when they lack action- and thought-influencing motivation given by a leader. 


3. Having and communicating clear and attainable goals resulting in fulfilled organizational objectives.


4. Being able to institute necessary organizational change and see it successfully through to adoption; organizational change requires the motivating guidance of a leader for it to succeed.


5. Attracting the right people for the needed roles and tasks at the right times and in the right places: people form the organization, comprise its followers and leaders (also called leader-followers), and drive goal attainment, objective achievement, and change implementation.

Where does Scout spend most of her time in Harper Lee's book, To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Harper Lee's classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, we might first look for a particular and physical spot where Scout spends most of her time. For example, we know the tree house is a good place for playing, but also thinking things through. However, I think that we need to answer the question from a much broader perspective.

We should note that Scout spends great deal of her time in places of the imagination, which she, with Jem and Dill, creates during their free time. Often they are imagining themselves as characters in one of Jem's adventure stories:

Thereafter the summer was passed in routine contentment Routine contentment was: improving our treehouse that rested between giant twin chinaberry trees in the back yard, fussing, running through our list of dramas based on the works of Oliver Optic, Victor Appleton, and Edgar Rice Burroughs. In this matter we were lucky to have Dill. He played the character parts formerly thrust upon me—the ape in Tarzan, Mr. Crabtree in The Rover Boys, Mr. Damon in Tom Swift. Thus we came to know Dill as a pocket Merlin, whose head teemed with eccentric plans, strange longings, and quaint fancies.

For all of the summers the three youngsters spend together, their imagination is a place that fills the many hours of daylight. This also includes the fantasies they have about Boo Radley. Between rumor and imagination, the children come up with all kinds of ideas and wild imaginings that often bring them close to disaster or deliver them up to be seriously reprimanded by Atticus.

In an ever broader sense, however, we see that Scout spends most of her time in the outdoors. Not a youngster to stay in on a sunny day, Scout is out and about experiencing the world in a variety of ways. Jem, Dill, and Scout play pretend, often about Boo Radley or the heroes of their books. In the winter, Jem and Scout are outside after Scout's first snowstorm, making a snowman that looks alarmingly like one of their neighbors. Receiving air rifles for Christmas, the kids are outside using them (this is when they learn that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird, as they are creatures that sing, bringing pleasure to the listener, but never do anyone harm).

Outside of the house, Scout and her brother go to the courthouse to hear their father defend Tom Robinson. Walking into town one day, they cross paths with nasty Mrs. Dubose, who says terrible things about Atticus. When Jem retaliates, Scout and Jem find themselves in Mrs. Dubose's company, reading to her. Another time, they notice the sick dog out on the street and learn about their father's particular skill in shooting. At the novel's end, Scout is out with her brother, returning home from a community program in which Scout participated. It is here that they are attacked.

The majority of what Scout learns during the course of the novel comes from experiences that take place outside of Finch home.

Throughout the novel, Scout spends most of her time playing in some manner—often through the use of the kids' collective imaginations. However, even all these games take place while Scout is out in the world; Scout (and Jem) come home only when called for dinner or bedtime. It is in this way that Scout learns so much about Maycomb. The character of Scout is able to be an masterful voice in the story's narration. While she is still relatively innocent, it is because of her involvement in so much of what takes place in the community that Scout is able to recall the events of that time and share them so adroitly with the reader—making the novel not only a classic coming-of-age story, but also one that addresses important social, religious and ethical questions of the day.

How do the colonial subjects repay their masters in Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden?"

One of the major themes of “The White Man’s Burden” is the idea that the white people go out and have to work hard to civilize the non-white people without any gratitude and often without much success.  This is how the colonial subjects repay their masters.  They repay them by resenting them instead of appreciating what they do.  They also repay them by destroying (even if they do not do so on purpose) the things that the masters are trying to achieve.

One of these ways that the subjects repay their masters is found in the third stanza.  There, Kipling tells us that all the work that the white people do will end up being for nothing.  They will work hard to try to end famine and war, but it will not work. The reason for this is because the subject people will ruin what the masters are trying to accomplish.  Kipling tells his white audience that

when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

In other words, he is saying, the subject people will repay their masters by spoiling everything they have been working for. The subjects are lazy and foolish and they will therefore ruin all the good work the whites are doing.

The second way in which the subjects repay their masters is found in the fifth stanza.  There, Kipling warns the white audience that their subjects will not appreciate their efforts.  The white people will try to pull the subjects “(Ah, slowly!) toward the light.”  This means that they will try to civilize their subjects even though that is difficult and it takes a long time.  However, the subjects will not be grateful.  Instead, they will resent the efforts of their masters.  As Kipling says, they will hate and blame their masters and ask

"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

From these two stanzas, we can see how the subject people will repay their masters.  They will repay them by ruining (even if they do not mean to) all the things the whites are trying to do.  They will also repay the masters by hating and resenting them.  This is part of why, Kipling says, imperialism is such a burden on the white people.

In The Crucible, who are Ann and Thomas Putnam?

Thomas and Ann Putnam are wealthy landowners in Salem and become directly involved in the witchcraft trials when they start accusing people of being witches.  Thomas Putnam accuses neighbors that surround his farm so he can take their land from them.  He also has a grudge against Francis Nurse who he claims prevented Thomas's brother-in-law from becoming the town minister.  Ann Putnam is just as sinister as her husband, Thomas.  Ann accuses Goody Nurse of being a witch when she makes wild claims and tries to justify why seven of her children died in childbirth or as young infants.  Rebecca Nurse was the mid-wife to Ann Putnam during the births, and Ann uses Rebecca as a scapegoat.  Ann Putnam stresses in her accusations that none of Rebecca Nurse’s children died; and therefore, she feels that the devil worked through Rebecca to kill her children.

Both Thomas and Ann represent all that was wrong with Salem during the witch trials.  Their greed for more land and power and the need to reconcile their culpability in their children’s deaths caused them to strike out at others. 

What are the most prominent attributes of God in Genesis 1 ("The Beginning") and Genesis 2 ("Adam and Eve")?

Almost all scholars of the Bible agree that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4 onward were written by two different authors and then placed together in the same book at a much later time. The two different authors present creation differently and also present God somewhat differently. They even refer to God with different names: the author of Genesis 1 uses the Hebrew word elohim, which simply means “God,” while the author of Genesis 2 uses God’s proper name Yahweh (which is often translated “LORD”).

The differences do not stop at the names of God, however. In Genesis 1, creation is presented as the triumph of order over chaos, and God is the creator of order. He operates according to a well-structured and well-thought-out plan, by which he creates the world and everything in it in six days and rests on the seventh. God in Genesis 1 is cosmic and all-powerful. He controls the whole universe, and he creates the world by merely speaking. After he has created it, he is pleased by what he has created.

To fully understand how the writer of Genesis 1 was portraying God, it is helpful to look at other ancient creation stories that the author may have read or known about, such as the Babylonian creation myth. Many scholars believe that the author of Genesis 1 is trying to show that the God of the Bible is much more powerful than Marduk, the chief god of Babylon. Marduk is also the champion of order over chaos, but in his case he must fight an epic battle with the monster Tiamat (who is also his grandmother) in order to create order in the world. In contrast, the God of Genesis 1 is completely supreme. There is no challenge to his kingship of the universe or his ability to dictate its events. 

In Genesis 2, God appears much more personal and local. He creates the man and personally commands him to take care of the garden, and not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (verses 7-17). His plan is not nearly as well-considered as that of Genesis 1, since he only thinks to make the woman after he sees that the man should not be alone (verses 18-24). This god is much more a god of the earth than a god of the cosmos. He is close and personal, rather than far-off and removed.

What behavior earned Max the nickname "Kicker?" Why did he behave this way?

On the very first page of Freak the Mighty, we learn that Max earned the name "Kicker" in daycare. According to Max, he would kick "anyone who dared to touch [him]." Without hesitation, Max would kick people who would hug him. Even as a child, Max could recognize that the hugs were "phony." 

One reason why Max may have decided to react in this manner could be related to his unstable upbringing. He started day care when his grandma and grandpa took him in as their own - later, we learn that Max's father is in prison and his mother is dead.

From Max's perspective, the hugs were a symbol of pity. People felt sorry for him due to his situation, but Max didn't accept their pity.

The only person he never kicked in daycare, we learn, is Freak. In the first chapter, Max argues that this was due to the fact that Freak used crutches. However, if you trace the relationship between Max and Freak throughout the book, you notice that Freak is the one person who doesn't pity Max. Instead, he builds him to reach his potential, boosts his confidence, and becomes his best friend. 

In a Excel file we are provided with 8 columns worth of data about soup ingredients. Columns A & B indicate the soup flavor where 1 = chicken...

Statistical analysis is the process of extracting meaningful information from raw data. There are two branches of statistics that are used in the development of the required information and these are;

• Descriptive statistics


• Inferential statistics

Descriptive statistics are used to provide a clear description of the data by obtaining information that would explain the data collected. They also show the distribution of the data as determined by descriptive statistical metrics. Descriptive statistics include; mean, standard deviation, coefficient of correlation, variance among others.

Inferential statistics are used to provide answers to hypotheses developed by the investigator or researcher and to offer predictive models. They also show relationships between the different variables based on the data collected. Inferential statistics include; regression, correlation, t-tests among others.

Starting with descriptive analysis, the mean for the different soup flavors and soup types can be calculated to determine the central value of the particular types and flavors.

The standard deviation is another measure that is calculated to determine the spread of the different values from the mean. A standard deviation close to zero shows the data is close to the mean, while those giving a higher value, show spread from the mean. This value can be calculated for the soup flavor and type independently by first calculating the variance then getting the square root where the result is the standard deviation.

The range is a statistic measure that is used to show statistical dispersion within the smallest interval in a data distribution. A range in this case can be calculated for the soup flavor and soup type.

Regression analysis which is a measure of inferential statistics can be calculated to estimate the relationship between the soup flavor and soup type. This can be done by holding the flavor or type as an independent or dependent variable. Regression would help the investigator to predict which soup type would be preferred for a particular flavor.

Correlation analysis can also be performed to determine the strength in the relationship between the different soup types and flavors.

T-test analysis can be performed to determine the difference between the soup flavors and types.

When developing the statistical analysis, it is advisable to start with frequency tables with percentages to provide a summary of the data and to enable simple extraction of the data for calculation using the models described above.

What is the difference between anger and wrath?

Anger and wrath are closely related, but they do not mean the same thing, nor are they equivalent emotions.  The dictionary defines anger as "a strong feeling of displeasure."  Anger is actually quite normal.  It's normal to feel angry when a person wrongs you or when you feel that something unfair has happened.  Wrath on the other hand, is an extreme form of anger.  Unlike anger, wrath is not normal and certainly not healthy, because wrath is a destructive and vindictive form of anger.  Wrath usually leads a person toward some kind of destructive behavior toward another person.  In fact, wrath is so extreme and hurtful that the Christian religion has marked it as one of the seven deadly sins, because it usually overrides existing moral boundaries.  

In the poem "A Poison Tree," the speaker lets his anger turn into wrath.   He holds on to and harbors large amounts of anger toward his friend until it becomes wrath.  At that point, the speaker plots and kills his friend.  The wrath (extreme anger) overrode his moral compass and caused him to commit a vengeful and vindictive act.  Anger doesn't do that.  Wrath does. 

Many people consider Victor Frankenstein to be the real monster in the novel. Do you agree?

The first piece of evidence for this is biographical. Some critics suggest that Mary Shelley's husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, was actually the model for Victor Frankenstein, something substantiated by the subtitle The Modern Prometheus, which might be read an an allusion to Percy's verse drama "Prometheus Unbound." Percy was a brilliant poet, but shared the arrogance of Victor. Shelley had begun his relationship with Mary while he was still married to another woman, and was prone to adultery. Like Percy, Victor is handsome, brilliant, and self-centered, from a distinguished upper-class family, with a habit of acting on impulse and not considering the consequences of his actions.

The monster points out that he is, in a sense, Victor's child, and Victor is, in every sense, a terrible father. The monster describes reading Victor's notes about his creation and comments:

'Hateful day when I received life!' I exclaimed in agony. `Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even YOU turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance.'

Imagine that the monster is like a child with special needs. A good parent has the capacity to love children who might have various disabilities or unusual appearances; most of us would consider it morally reprehensible for a parent to hate a child with Down's syndrome or some other inherited condition that makes the child appear unusual, and yet here Victor is disgusted with a shape he himself had deliberately created in its original form. 

Victor lets Justine be hanged for a murder committed by the monster. This again shows him as irresponsible, and mainly concerned with his own position and reputation rather than with other people. 

When the monster begs for a bride, Victor again acts out of self-interest and revulsion rather than realizing, as the monster explains, that what creates the monster's character is, in fact, the way Victor treats him. Just as abused children can grow up to become abusers, so the monster's creator, Victor, is actually a model of self-interest and obsessive pursuit of selfish goals rather than someone who contributes to society and is kind and loving to his offspring, and thus a bad role model for his creation.

How does "A Soldier's Home" apply to contemporary crises or conditions we face today?

The overall theme of the story is a soldier returning from war and having trouble going back to "normal" life after having gone through the traumas of battle. Krebs finds that the people around him have no concept of what he has gone through, cannot comprehend it even if he were to share it, and he must lie and pretend to be normal in order to fit back into the town he used to call "home." Each of these challenges that Krebs faces are challenges that soldiers returning from battle have always and will always face.

If we look at American society today, we are still deploying troops to the Middle East to help train and fight. Since 2001, we have fought in two separate wars, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, deploying more than 2 million troops. The soldiers who have come home from these wars have faced the same challenges as Krebs, and although Krebs was probably suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), that was not a term or diagnosis following World War I. Now we recognize this as a disorder that requires help from mental health professionals and understand it as an epidemic among returning troops. Their readjustment to home life often takes a very long time and is incredibly difficult, for all of the reasons we see in the story.

Many "return with varied complex health conditions and find that readjusting to life at home, reconnecting with family, finding work, or returning to school is an ongoing struggle" (National Academies).

Hemingway's story is actually timeless because war has always and will always continue to take an emotional and physical toll on soldiers that, in many ways, only other soldiers can fully understand.

What quote can I use to show that Odysseus is smart and heroic?

Odysseus's dealings with Polyphemus, the Cyclops, go a long way in terms of showing how Odysseus is both clever and heroic. When it becomes clear that Polyphemus is savage and brutal and will continue to kill Odysseus's men, Odysseus says that he waited until the Cyclops fell asleep that night, and

"then formed the plan within my daring heart of closing on him, drawing my sharp sword from my thigh, and stabbing him in the breast where the midriff holds the liver [...].  Yet second thoughts restrained me, for then we too had met with utter ruin; for we could never with our hands have pushed from the tall door the enormous stone which he had set against it."

First, these lines show Odysseus's great courage, a requirement of all ancient Greek heroes. He was willing to endanger himself by attacking a creature so many times larger than himself so that he could save his men. Second, these lines also prove that Odysseus exercises forethought and intelligence when making plans, even when he is in grave danger. Rather than behave rashly and thereby sound the death knell for his whole crew, he realizes that they need the Cyclops to roll away the stone door, and so he cannot kill him.

Odysseus's new plan to blind Polyphemus is much sounder because being blind will not stop the Cyclops from rolling away the stone door. Odysseus cleverly tells Polyphemus that his name is "No one" or "No man" (depending on your translation), and then gets him very drunk. When the monster passes out, the crew blinds him with a sharpened olive stake, and when the other Cyclopes come to answer his screams, he shouts that "No one" is hurting him and so they go away! Therefore, when Odysseus speaks to Polyphemus and tells him this lie, he is likewise displaying both his cleverness and heroism. He says, 

"'Cyclops, you asked my noble name, and I will tell it [...].  My name is No man. No man I am called by mother, father, and by all my comrades.'"

His cunning and clever planning and sheer bravery are reasons why Odysseus is counted among the most heroic figures in Greek mythology.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, what is revealed when Tom Robinson is called upon to stand up in the courtroom and what impact does this have on...

When Atticus questions Bob Ewell, he shows that Bob is left-handed. Scout concludes that Atticus is trying to show that Bob could have beat up Mayella: 

If her right eye was blacked and she was beaten mostly on the right side of the face, it would tend to show that a left-handed person did it. 

During Mayella's testimony, she is shaky and uncertain of what to say. When Atticus asks if Tom had beat her about the face, she finally says, "No, I don’t recollect if he hit me. I mean yes I do, he hit me." Mayella claims that Tom choked her and beat her. When Tom stands up, the court sees that his left arm is very short and basically useless: 

His left arm was fully twelve inches shorter than his right, and hung dead at his side. It ended in a small shriveled hand, and from as far away as the balcony I could see that it was no use to him. 

This makes it seem impossible that Tom could have been choking and beating her at the same time. And since Mayella's injuries were to the right side of her face, it suggests that Bob is more likely than Tom to have hit her. The injuries to her right side are more likely to have come from a left-handed person. Bob is left-handed. Tom's left hand is useless. 

What prevents the narrator from killing the old man in the first seven nights in "The Tell-Tale Heart"?

In "The Tell-Tale Heart", the narrator claims that his primary motive for killing the old man is the old man's hideous "Evil Eye", which frightens and horrifies him. He is convinced that they eye itself is evil and determines that he must extinguish it. Because his issue is with the "Evil Eye" and not the old man himself, the narrator feels that the "Evil Eye" must be open in order for him to go through with the murder. On the first seven nights, the narrator enters the room silently and the old man is asleep so that he never has the opportunity to extinguish the eye. Finally, on the last night, the narrator makes a noise when opening his lantern which wakes the old man. The narrator shines his lantern upon the "Evil Eye" and finally has the opportunity to extinguish it by killing the old man.

Two or more atoms that are chemically linked to make substance with unique properties ?

Two or more atoms when chemically linked to form substance with unique properties result in the formation of a chemical compound or simply, compound. In simpler terms, two or more different atoms (chemically) combine in a fixed ratio and result in a substance known as a chemical compound or simply a compound. The participating atoms are from pure elements, each with its own set of properties. However, when a compound is formed, participating atoms lose their individual properties (that they had as an element) and the compound as a whole has a new set of characteristics. For example, hydrogen is a fuel and oxygen is necessary for starting a fire. However, when atoms of hydrogen and oxygen combine, in a 2:1 ratio, we get water (H2O), which is used for extinguishing fires. 

Hope this helps. 

What is Scrooge and Tiny Tim's relationship at the end of the story in A Christmas Carol?

Scrooge became like a father to Tiny Tim, looking out for him and his family.

At the beginning of the story, Scrooge seems to scarcely know of Tiny Tim’s existence.  He makes little effort to get to know Bob Cratchit or his family.  To Scrooge he is just a clerk and an employee.  They spend their days separate and solitary.  It is not until Scrooge visits the Cratchit family with the Ghost of Christmas Present that he really pays attention to Cratchit’s plight, and realizes he has a crippled son.

Scrooge, who previously claimed that the poor were “surplus population” and if they died it was no big deal, seems drawn to Cratchit’s youngest son.  Tim is pious, gentle, and clearly crippled.  He is a target for sympathy if ever there was one, and he seems to melt Scrooge’s heart.

“Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”

“I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “…If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.”

“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.” (Stave Three)

Scrooge’s reaction is one of pity, and maybe some measure of guilt.  After all, he never took an interest in Cratchit’s family.  He never intervened to help them because he simply didn’t care.  Now that he knows them and has seen them, and realizes that they are good people, he is torn.  He pities them and feels a connection to them, through Bob.  He takes ownership over them and their situation.

It is no coincidence that the first thing Scrooge does when he wakes up Christmas morning is send the Cratchit family the biggest turkey he can find.  He wants to help Bob immediately, and not waste any time before putting a little extra meat in Tiny Tim’s belly.  Scrooge later tells Bob that he wants to discuss his affairs, and tells him he will raise his salary “endeavour to assist your struggling family” (Stave Five).

More importantly, Scrooge takes an interest in the Cratchits beyond money.  Particularly, he seems fond of Tiny Tim.

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did NOT die, he was a second father. (Stave Five)

Since he doesn’t have much of a family, Scrooge adopts the Cratchits as his surrogate family.  He becomes a good friend to Bob and a kindly uncle to Tiny Tim.  He will make sure that the Cratchits never again know hunger, and Tiny Tim will not only live but thrive.  To Scrooge, this is the true meaning of Christmas.  He has come to realize that there is no surplus population.  Every life is precious.

In Tiny Tim, Dickens created a character that tugs at the readers’ heartstrings and puts a name and face to poverty.  How could Dickens’s readers walk past a beggar child on the street now, and not think of Tiny Tim and the fate he so narrowly missed?  Dickens personified the poor, and took them out of the shadows.  His legacy of making readers care about their fellow man lives on to this day.

Is pathos a rhetorical device?

Yes, pathos is a rhetorical device, and one that is used effectively in Julius Caesar.  Typically, you hear about pathos in conjunction with two other rhetorical devices -- ethos and logos.  To illustrate the differences, let's suppose that an animal shelter wanted to advertise that it wanted more animals to be adopted.

A logos approach to this would cite facts and figures.  Perhaps a commercial would note the number of animals that have to be euthanized each week because they had not been adopted.  Or perhaps the advertiser would cite the fact that pet owners tend to live longer than non pet owners.  In an ethos approach, the credibility of the speaker tends to lend credence to what is being said.  Perhaps the advertiser would enlist a celebrity to endorse the shelter, knowing that the people would trust what the celebrity was saying.

A pathos approach would tug on the heart strings.  The word "pathos" means to evoke feelings of sadness or pity.  In a pathos approach, the shelter would, as you sometimes see various animal groups doing, create a commercial with pictures of animals in their cages, looking forlorn (cue the sad music!).

People use logos, ethos, and pathos within speeches to the same effect.

How does Steinbeck use Crooks to explore ideas about racism in 1930s California?

Crooks is the crippled black "stable buck" in John Steinbeck's 1930's novella Of Mice and Men set in the Salinas Valley of California. Racism and segregation ruled the day in depression era America. Blacks had only gained their freedom from slavery some 70 years before the writing of this book. The first government bans on discrimination were still a few years away and the American military remained segregated until 1948. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement were waiting in the wings but wouldn't hit high gear for another 30 years. Jackie Robinson was also more than ten years away from breaking the color barrier in professional baseball and it wouldn't be until the 1960's before sports would see black and white roommates when Chicago Bears running backs Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo teamed up.

The ranch where the two main characters, George and Lennie, come to work is no different than the rest of America in the 1930's. Being black, Crooks is segregated from the rest of the men and has his own private quarters in the barn. He is rarely allowed in the bunkhouse where the white workers live. The one time he is able to enter the bunkhouse on a holiday, a presumedly racist accelerated incident takes place. The old swamper Candy recounts:

"They let the nigger come in that night. Little skinner name of Smitty took after the nigger. Done pretty good, too. The guys wouldn’t let him use his feet, so the nigger got him. If he coulda used his feet, Smitty says he woulda killed the nigger. The guys said on account of the nigger’s got a crooked back, Smitty can’t use his feet.” 

As one might surmise from the preceding passage, the N word is used often in Steinbeck's account. But even though Steinbeck uses the derogatory term toward Crooks he is otherwise treated quite sympathetically by the author. He is just another character in the story who feels the pain of loneliness which permeates the novel. In fact, Crooks is really no different from Curley, Curley's Wife or Candy. They are all essentially lonely and segregated characters for different reasons. Crooks for the obvious reason of the color of his skin, Curley for his totally obnoxious and belligerent attitude, and Curley's wife because of her sex. 

Only the simple minded Lennie is able to break the pattern of racism when he enters Crooks' room in chapter four. At first Lennie is unwelcome. Crooks says:

"You go on get outa my room. I ain’t wanted in the bunk house, and you ain’t wanted in my room.” 

But since Lennie doesn't comprehend that Crooks is somehow different from the other men he is persistent in engaging Crooks and the black man is ultimately grateful for having someone to talk to:

"Crooks scowled, but Lennie’s disarming smile defeated him. “Come on in and set a while,” Crooks said. “’Long as you won’t get out and leave me alone, you might as well set down.” His tone was a little more friendly. “All the boys gone into town, huh?”

It is here that we learn more about Crooks. His family was one of the only black families in this part of California and when he was a child the children he played with, like Lennie, didn't recognize the color of his skin:

“I ain’t a southern Negro,” he said. “I was born right here in California. My old man had a chicken ranch, ‘bout ten acres. The white kids come to play at our place, an’ sometimes I went to play with them, and some of them was pretty nice. My ol’ man didn’t like that. I never knew till long later why he didn’t like that. But I know now.”

Later of course Crooks discovered what his father knew. Blacks had second class status in the world and he was not very often allowed into the white world. Lennie, and later Candy, help Crooks to forget the segregation and for a brief time in the novel there is a possibility that Crooks could come to the farm with George, Lennie and Candy as an equal worker. Crooks says:

“ . . . . If you . . . . guys would want a hand to work for nothing—just his keep, why I’d come an’ lend a hand. I ain’t so crippled I can’t work like a son-of-a-bitch if I want to.” 

But just as Crooks begins to feel like he might be part of something Curley's wife enters the barn and destroys the fraternal feeling that is beginning to exist between Crooks, Lennie and Candy. Curley's wife brutally reminds Crooks of his place in the world. She says,

“Listen, Nigger,” she said. “You know what I can do to you if you open your trap?” ... “Well, you keep your place then, Nigger. I could get you strung upon a tree so easy it ain’t even funny.”

After the exchange with Curley's wife Crooks again retreats into his shell and thoughts of being part of the dream is lost in a hail of racist remarks. Crooks addresses Candy:

“’Member what I said about hoein’ and doin’ odd jobs?”
“Yeah,” said Candy. “I remember.”
“Well, jus’ forget it,” said Crooks. “I didn’t mean it. Jus’ foolin’. I wouldn't want to go no place like that.”

Crooks' final lines are, of course, false, but Curley's wife startles him back into the realization that he could never be part of the white world, not, at least, in the world of 1930's America. 

Hi, I have a problem in my science homework. The question is: Which particle is more soluble Particle A: 10 g/100ml of water at 25°C or B:...

Solubility is a property of a solute and represents its ability to be dissolved in a particular solvent. The higher the solubility, the more it can dissolve in the particular solvent. For example, we can dissolve a significant amount of sugar in water, at a given temperature. In comparison, we can hardly dissolve any sand or sawdust in the same amount of water. This clearly shows that sugar is more soluble (or, has higher solubility) in water than sand or sawdust. 

Here, we have two particles, one with a solubility of 10 gm in 100 ml of water, at 25° C and the other with a solubility of 24.7 gm in same sample of water. Since the second particle can dissolve a higher amount in water, it has more solubility. That is, particle B has a higher water solubility that particle A.

It should be noted that volume and temperature of the solvent was same in this case. In general, water solubility of solutes increase with an increase in water temperature. Similarly, a higher amount of a solute will be dissolved in larger volume of water. Here all the conditions were the same and hence the particle, with a greater amount of solute that dissolved in water, will indeed have higher solubility.

Hope this helps.

Why didn't Macbeth kill Banquo himself? Why give the job to those two murderers?

These are interesting questions. There are several possible answers. In the first and most important place, Shakespeare was trying to maintain some degree of audience sympathy for Macbeth because this was his tragic hero. He couldn't show Macbeth going around murdering people and still maintain any sympathy for him. We feel little enough sympathy for Macbeth in the end as it is. The only good thing to be said about him is that he is extremely courageous. He even challenges Fate itself and goes down fighting Fate, which he finds is invincible.

Furthermore, Macbeth is not really a murderer. He has had enough of cold-blooded murder when he kills Duncan in his sleep, as we can see in the aftermath. When his wife tells him he must go back to Duncan's chamber and smear the faces of the drugged grooms with blood from the two daggers, he replies:

I'll go no more:
I am afraid to think what I have done;
Look on't again I dare not.          (2.2)

So his wife has to take the daggers and go back to do the grisly job for him. She is one of the first to do his dirty work. When Macbeth thinks of killing Banquo it is natural for him to find someone else to do it. He doesn't mind killing men in battle, but he doesn't like committing villainous murders. We can say that for him too: he is not much good as a murderer. He delegates Banquo's and Fleance's murders to two men who are joined by a third murderer just before the assault takes place. And later when he has a number of soldiers slaughter Macduff's family and everyone else in Macduff's castle, he is getting someone else to do his dirty work. This is partly because he is squeamish about the criminal kind of killing and also because Shakespeare didn't want to make him look any worse than he already was. We are supposed to feel some pity for Macbeth at the end, when he is all alone and everybody hates him, and he is totally depressed.

In addition to these reasons, there is the fact that Macbeth becomes king almost immediately after Duncan's assassination. As king, Macbeth has more power. He can kill anybody he wants to--but he has to be concerned about public opinion. When he has Banquo killed at some distance from his castle, he makes sure that he has a good alibi. He is hosting a big banquet. How could he have killed Banquo and tried to kill Fleance? But when he has Macduff's wife and children murdered, he no longer seems to care about what people think. In fact, he does this openly in order to set an example. He wants to show what can happen to any of his followers who, like Macduff, desert him. 

Macbeth might have another reason for not planning to kill Banquo himself. Banquo is a warrior. He would not be as easy to kill as an old man sound asleep in his bed. Macbeth might feel that he would need help. After all, there are two people involved, Banquo and his son Fleance. Fleance might get away while he was fighting with the boy's father--which is pretty much what happens. Banquo and his son may stay at Dunsinane for another night, but we can be sure that Banquo would be wide awake and have his door securely bolted and barricaded. We see in Act 2, Scene 1 that Banquo keeps his sword with him while he is in Macbeth's castle. Early in the scene he tells Fleance:

Hold, take my sword.

He does this because Shakespeare wanted to show his audience that he has a sword. Then when Macbeth enters, Banquo says:

Give me my sword!

Banquo knows he is in danger because he knows--just as we know--that Macbeth cannot like the idea of Banquo's descendants forming a long line of Scottish monarchs. Banquo is also sure that it was Macbeth who killed Duncan, even though he managed to pin the blame on Malcolm and Donalbain. Banquo knows Macbeth is a very dangerous man, and he doesn't like being a guest in his castle.

Shakespeare may not have wanted to write yet another murder scene in which Macbeth goes creeping down the corridors in the dark. It would be too repetitious. The playwright had wrung about as much emotion out of the first murder as he could expect to get. He needed some variety. A writer has to keep changing things in order to hold the interest of his reader or his audience. This is one of the secrets of good creative writing.

What happened in the boycott of British goods socially?

The boycott of British goods had an impact in many ways. There were people who felt the colonists were wrong for boycotting the products of British merchants. They believed that the colonists had representation in Parliament. Therefore, they believed the claim of “no taxation without representation” was inaccurate. They believed the colonists were hurting the British merchants whom they viewed as innocent victims of the boycott. They weren’t in support of boycotting British products.

The British merchants were also unhappy with the boycott. The British merchants complained to Parliament that the policies of Parliament were hurting the British merchants. They wanted Parliament to end the tax laws so the colonists would resume buying products from the British merchants. They put pressure of members of Parliament to end the tax laws that the colonists felt were unfair. These laws included the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts.

In some cases, colonists who agreed to boycott British products were publicly embarrassed when they were caught violating the boycott. The names of those violating the agreement to boycott were published in the newspaper for everybody to see.

The boycott had a definite social impact in the colonies and in Great Britain.

Why were Federalists much more likely to be coastal and urban, while Anti-Federalists were much more likely to be from the interior, rural regions?

There are reasons why the Federalists tended to be located in cities and along the coast while the Anti-Federalists tended to be in rural areas and in the interior of the country. The main reasons have to do with the jobs the people did and the transportation of the products made or produced. The Federalists mainly represented business people. Businesses tend to locate near cities and water. There is more economic activity in the cities. Thus, the ability to make money was greater in the city. The businesses needed to ship their products to other countries. Being located near water, helped ease that process and reduce shipping costs. Business products tended to be bigger and bulkier than farm products. As a result, being near the coast was important for business people.

The Anti-Federalists represented many farmers. Farmers needed lots of open space to grow their crops. There was more open space in the interior of the country than in the cities. Additionally, the land was more expensive in the cities than in the rural areas. Farmers could also ship their farm products more easily by rivers than big businesses could ship the products they made by rivers. There were plenty of rivers and streams in the interior of the country that connected to major rivers. These rivers, in turn, led to the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean.

What is an example of shocking imagery in "Anthem for Doomed Youth"?

I believe that you are asking about Owen's use of striking imagery in his powerful, evocative descriptions of the horrors of World War I in "Anthem for Doomed Youth." "Anthem for Doomed Youth" is arguably one of the most moving war poems ever written. Few poets have gone on to capture the desperation and hopelessness of the violence that characterized the First World War in the same way that Owen has. For me, one of the most powerful images Owen illustrates occurs in the poem's opening line, when Owen brilliantly equates soldiers to cattle lining up to be slaughtered. This devastating line deflates the distended, grotesque glory jingoistic poets of the time attributed to serving in the army, and provides a frank assessment of the situation. These young men were likely not coming back from combat; indeed, Owen himself was killed prior to the end of the war. Therefore, the image of men lining up like cattle is incredibly effective, and shows them as unknowingly marching toward their untimely end.

From A Separate Peace by John Knowles, what are some key quotes that show Gene's neurotic personality?

The word "neurotic" isn't used in psychology circles so much any more because there are more specific words used to diagnose different mental illnesses these days. The word technically refers to an unsettling of the nerves, or pertaining to nervousness. Gene does seem to be nervous, but more specifically, he is a paranoid, insecure teenager with a newly discovered dark side that he must learn to tame. This dark side comes out as Gene's paranoia and insecurity are pushed to their limits as he inadvertantly breaks his pre-supposed rival's leg. Because the book is written from Gene's perspective, there are many quotes that discuss what he is thinking and how his thoughts expose his paranoia and insecurities. 

In chapter 2, Gene admits to being envious of Phineas. Gene realizes that Phineas can charm his way out of anything, beat anyone at any game, and do anything he wanted in life. Gene says, "There was no harm in envying even your best friend a little"(25). But this slowly starts to get out of control as Finny seems to do one incredible thing after another. Gene's mental status spirals.

For example, in chapter 3, Finny breaks the school swimming record and Gene hits a breaking point with his jealousy. Finny didn't want to tell anyone about the accomplishment so it festers in Gene. Gene says the following:

". . .so I didn't tell anybody. Perhaps for that reason his accomplishment took root in my mind and grew rapidly in the darkness where I was forced to hide it"(44).

This darkness and hiding things builds up in Gene to the point where he can't contain his jealousy and that isn't good for mental health.

By chapter 4 Finny and Gene get into an argument about grades, recreational time, and how each one perceives the other. Gene realizes he has been jealous of Finny, but what really gets his goat is when he says:

"He had never been jealous of me for a second. Now I knew that there never was and never could have been any rivalry between us. I was not the same quality as he"(59).

By this point, Gene is completely riled up mentally and he's energized to go prove himself by jumping off the tree into the Devon river again. Again, not a good frame of mind at this point and it leads to him jouncing the branch which leads to Finny's broken leg.

Describe the adaptations that enable plants to survive on land.

There are a number of adaptations that allow plants to survive on land. A prominent adaptation is the vascular system. This consists of xylem and phloem tissues that transport nutrients and water to various parts of the plants. This extensive transport system allows the plants to gain height and become large in size. The plants have also adapted to reduce the water loss across cell walls. This is made possible by waxy cuticles. Another adaptation is the stomata that can open and close and allow the exchange of gases (generated during photosynthesis and respiration) and water vapors. Stomata are present on the leaf surfaces. Seed dispersal is another adaptation and allows the plant to propagate. Without dispersal there are chances that daughter plants may be infected by the same/similar predator or infection as the parent plant.

Hope this helps. 

What are five historical facts that you learn about the fire and its aftermath in Chains by Laurie Halse Anderson?

The fire that the question is asking about is the fire that burns down Lady Seymour's house. Isabel rescues Lady Seymour and a few of her valued possessions from the fire. That particular New York City fire is an actual historical event. Here are the five things I learned about the fire from this book:

• I learned there was an actual real fire that ravaged a large part of New York. Until reading this book, I only knew about "The Great Chicago Fire."  


• The fire happened in 1776.  


• It burned about 500 buildings.


• It burned nearly one quarter of the housing that existed in New York at the time. 


• "Canvastown" was the name for the burned remains of the city because of the hovels hastily constructed over the burned-out cellars.  


• Nobody knows who or what caused the fire.  

One last interesting detail about the fire: the World Trade Center Towers were built over portions of New York that burned in 1776. St. Paul's Chapel is located in that area as well. That chapel has survived both the fire and the September 11 attacks.

Identify the protagonists in "The Things They Carried" and in "Saboteur," then identify a literary conflict that these protagonists share....

The protagonist in The Things They Carried is Tim O'Brien, who is also the narrator. In Ha Jin's Saboteur, Mr. Chiu is the protagonist.

As for literary conflicts, there are four major ones: man versus nature, man versus man, man versus society, and man versus self.

A literary conflict both protagonists share is the man versus society conflict.

In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien writes about his experiences as a soldier during the Vietnam War. He laments the fact that he is still writing about war at the age of forty-three years. However, he asserts that writing is a cathartic experience for him and is the only way he can maintain his sanity in the face of latent grief and pain. O'Brien moralizes about society's expectations in regard to courage and duty. He admits that he was against the war while he attended college.

As a pacifist, he has always maintained that 'when a nation goes to war it must have reasonable confidence in the justice and imperative of its cause.' So, when the draft notice came on June 17, 1968, O'Brien felt ambivalent and angry. As a liberal, he was against war as a matter of principle, but in the face of overwhelming evidence, felt pressured to conform to societal expectations of duty.

Moreover, I could not claim to be opposed to war as a matter of general principle. There were occasions, I believed, when a nation was justified in using military force to achieve its ends, to stop a Hitler or some comparable evil, and I told myself that in such circumstances I would've willingly marched off to the battle. The problem, though, was that a draft board did not let you choose your war.

O'Brien also reports feeling alienated from the society of his peers after being reassigned to battalion supply duty following his injuries. Besides having to endure physical discomfort during his convalescence, O'Brien finds that his reassignment has oddly relegated him to civilian status among his peers.

I felt close to them, yes, but I also felt a new sense of  separation... They were still my buddies, at least on one level, but once you leave the boonies, the whole comrade business gets turned around. You become a civilian. You forfeit membership in the family, the blood fraternity, and no matter how hard you try, you can't pretend to be part of it.

So, O'Brien faces a sort of double conflict: prior to leaving for Vietnam, he has to reconcile his own principles with society's expectations, and after his injuries, he has to reconcile himself to his alienation from his peers while reassigned to non-combat duty.

In Saboteur, Mr. Chiu's conflict with society is no less fraught with physical and emotional pain. When he falls victim to the machinations of a self-important railroad policeman, Mr. Chiu finds that the crowd is more intent on satisfying its curiosity than on helping him. As such, no one speaks up on his behalf despite his innocence. To make matters worse, some of the people in the crowd have signed obviously spurious statements maligning his good name to the authorities.

Mr. Chiu was dazed to see the different handwritings, which all stated that he had shouted in the square to attract attention and refused to obey the police. One of the witnesses had identified herself as a purchasing agent from a shipyard in Shanghai. Something stirred in Mr. Chiu's stomach, a pain rising to his ribs. He gave out a faint moan.

Mr. Chiu finds that his membership in the Communist party and his prestigious position as a lecturer at Harbin University have proven useless in his quest for justice. He is imprisoned and left to suffer for two days without benefit of any medication for his heart condition and his hepatitis ailment. Upon his release, he is still so angry that he would have 'razed the entire police station and eliminated all their families' had he had the ability to do so.

Instead, he decides to spread his hepatitis disease to as many people as he can.

As if dying of hunger, Mr. Chiu dragged his lawyer from restaurant to restaurant near the police station, but at each place he ordered no more than two bowls of food. Fenjin wondered why his teacher wouldn't stay at one place and eat his fill...Within a month over eight hundred people contracted acute hepatitis in Muji. Six died of the disease, including two children. Nobody knew how the epidemic had started.

In Mr. Chiu's eyes, society has been corrupted by Communist oppression. Additionally, it is implied that Mr Chiu also holds his countrymen responsible for tolerating such a pitiful state of affairs. His impotence in the face of suffering leads Mr. Chiu to lash out at society as a whole: he uses his body as a biological weapon to inflict as much suffering on as many people as he can.

Need help with the following: if `f(x) = 2x-3;` `g(x) = 1/(x+1),` find `(f@g)^(-1)(x).`

Hello!

First found the composition:

`(f@g)(x)=f(g(x))=f(1/(x+1))=2*1/(x+1)-3=-(3x+1)/(x+1).`

This function is defined everywhere except `x=-1.`

To find the inverse function, we have to solve for `x` the equation `(f@g)(x)=y:`

`-(3x+1)/(x+1)=y,`  or `(3x+1)/(x+1)=-y.`

Multiply both sides by `(x+1)` and obtain

`3x+1=-xy-y.`

Move the terms with `x` to the left and without `x` to the right:

`x(y+3)=-y-1=-(y+1),`

so  `x=-(y+1)/(y+3)`  (of course `y!=-3` ).

Thus the answer is: the function `(f@g)^(-1)(y)` exists for all `y!=-3` and is equal to `-(y+1)/(y+3).`

How did Anita Desai portray the child's disappointment in the story?

I believe that the child you are referring to in your question is Ravi. He spends most of the story hiding in a shed from Raghu, because the kids are playing hide and seek. The entire time Ravi is hiding, he is envisioning what his victory will feel and look like. Ravi stays hidden for so long that all of the kids forget about him completely. By the time he runs to the den to claim victory, all of the other kids have moved on to many other games. The kids and the parents all tell Ravi to stop acting so foolish and join in the new game if he wants to play.

Of course Ravi is supremely disappointed that nobody is willing to recognize his victory. The description of his disappointment is contained within the last paragraph.  

But he had been forgotten, left out, and he would not join them now. The ignominy of being forgotten—how could he face it? He felt his heart go heavy and ache inside him unbearably. He lay down full length on the damp grass, crushing his face into it, no longer crying, silenced by a terrible sense of his insignificance.

I get the feeling that Ravi is experiencing a mixture of anger and depression. The anger I get from the fact that he refuses to join in the new game. He's doing what my own kids do when they don't get their own way. He's pouting, which I feel is a more angry than sad response. As for the depression, I get that impression from the fact that Desai writes that Ravi is not crying, yet his heart feels "heavy." Add that to the "ache inside" of him, and I get the impression that Ravi is angry and depressed over the fact that the kids still think of him as completely insignificant. He is completely crushed by the events, because he believed that by beating Raghu, he would be cheered as a conquering hero of sorts.

In Our Nig by Harriet E. Wilson, what are some important quotes regarding attitudes about race, society, religion and education?

Our Nig: Sketches from the Life of a Free Black is significant in that it is considered the first American novel published by an African-American. With that in mind, all quotations from the novel that deal with society, religion and education are centered around, and directly influenced by, the protagonist’s race.  Wilson’s protagonist, Frado, constructs the God of her understanding instead of converting to white Christianity.  Wilson’s faith, disclosed in her selection of an epigraph and a letter to Allida, a white supporter, does not falter despite her conception of a heaven with no place for blacks, and so therefore uses Frado’s dismissal of white Christianity as a way of rejecting an oppressive, hypocritical God in light of the loving and just God of her understanding.

On several occasions, Frado struggles to reconcile her race and the oppression that she’s endures in the light of a God who’s supposedly made everyone equal. On page 51, during a particular conversation with James, a uniquely supportive family member, Frado asks,

“Who made me so?”

“God,” answered James. 

"Did God make you?"

"Yes."

"Who made Aunt Abby?"

"God."

"Did the same God that made her make me?

"Yes."

"Well, then, I don't like him."

“Why not?”

“Because he made her white, and me black.  Why didn't he make us both white?”

A question of this magnitude implies that Frado is not only self-actualizing her race against that of her family’s, but that she is also challenging the existence of an omnipotent god who created everyone equally but allows her consistent torture. 

The paradox of a Christian, African-American indentured slave is furthered when Mrs. Bellmont, the matriarch of the Bellmont family, disallows Frado from attending church.  She says, “Religion was not mean for niggers.”  (86) In saying this, she denies Frado the right to the purity of her own soul.  Her physical and mental imprisonment are then worsened by her mistress’ denial of personal redemption. 

On page 84, the reader finally sees the protagonist’s spiritual shift. She begins to question whether religion could actually be for someone in her race.  She “became a believer in a future existence—one of happiness or misery. Her doubt was, is there a heaven for the black?”

Since Wilson is the author of this mostly autobiographical novel, it becomes clear how deeply engrained the racism and abuse she experienced is. There are times she believes in the words of a pastor, but then ultimately will write as though she has bought into the mentality of uselessness that Mrs. Bellmont impresses upon her. This struggle is intensified when James dies.  She writes, “As she saw his body lowered in the grave she wished to share it; but she was not fit to die. She could not go where he was if she did. She did not love God; she did not serve him or know how to” (99).  Here, the line between the writer as the speaker and the protagonist as the speaker is further blurred.

As the story continues, Mrs. Bellmont promotes these doubts, and instills a fear in Frado that there may never be a white heaven for a black person. When James dies, Mrs. Bellmont tells her that she will never get into the same heaven as him (100). When prayers affect Frado emotionally, Mrs. Bellmont beats her for it (101).  

As the novel continues, we see what almost becomes a conversion narrative. Frado begins to pray more. She studies her Bible more. The sustenance Wilson finds through Christianity is palpable in the Appendix.  This includes a letter from Wilson addressed to Allida, a white friend.  In the letter, Wilson places high importance on her “beautiful little Bible” (134).  Wilson also quotes King David’s Psalm 23: “'The Lord is my shepherd,—I shall not want.”  Psalm 23 is known as a psalm designed to help overcome hardship.  The premise of the psalm is that with the Lord, one can always be comfortable.  Wilson finds black faith within white Christianity. Wilson’s letter describes a reconciled fait, achieving just that.  “I opened my precious little Bible,” she writes, “and the first verse that caught my eye was—'I am poor and needy, yet the Lord thinketh upon me.' O, my mother, could I tell you the comfort this was to me” (135).  Using the Bible as a primary source for her faith, Wilson reconciles Frado’s rejection of Christianity.  It is only through the word of the Lord as it is written in the Bible that Wilson can recognize Christianity as the embodiment of justice, freedom and love that is lacking from white oppressors.  The Christian God is compassionate toward the oppressed.  Despite the struggles described as Frado’s experience, Wilson is able to develop her own spirituality that is separate from white Christianity.

Wilson’s faith is accented by her deliberate use of a stanza from Bitter-Sweet, a poem by J.G. Holland, as the epigraph.  J.G. Holland, (who wrote as Timothy Titcomb) published this dialogue poem as a book in 1858.  The excerpt is from the section “First Movement” in which between Ruth, Israel, (a representation of the interpretation of God’s power and presence according to the Bible) and David, (the messenger of the Lord), are talking.  The excerpt used as the epigraph is taken from one of Ruth’s spoken parts:

I know/ That care has iron crowns for many brows;/ That Calvaries are everywhere, whereon/ Virtue is crucified, and nails and spears/ Draw guiltless blood; that sorrow sits and drinks/ At sweetest hearts, till all their life is dry;/ That gentle spirits on the rack of pain/ Grow faint or fierce, and pray and curse by turns;/ That Hell's temptations, clad in Heavenly guise/ And armed with might, lie evermore in wait/ Along life's path, giving assault to all.

Ruth is one of only two females in the Bible who have their own book.  She was the unfortunate widow destined to an impoverished life with her mother-in-law.  A farmer allowed to her to glean his field, where she was noticed by Boaz, a wealthy man.  This story embodies pain in life, but the happy ending gives a reason for Ruth’s unfortunate situation—if she never had to glean the lands, she would not have remarried the wealthy Boaz.  In the poem, both Israel and David try to convince Ruth that she needs to trust God’s will, that evil and suffering are a part of God’s universe and God will always prevail.

While Wilson does not write a conversion narrative, and her characterization of Frado exposes a rejection of white Christianity, the references to the importance of her “precious” Bible, Psalm 23, and this epigraph combine to expose to a close reader the Wilson’s faith in God still exists. 

What action does Rainsford take after Zaroff congratulates him in, "The Most Dangerous Game?"

Zaroff does indeed congratulate Rainsford.   In fact, he congratulates him twice in the story.  He first congratulates him when Rainsford makes a clever trap during the hunt.  He makes a Malay mancatcher. He also wounds Zaroff with this trap. Zaroff is impressed.

"Rainsford," called the general, "if you are within sound of my voice, as I suppose you are, let me congratulate you. Not many men know how to make a Malay mancatcher.

The second time general Zaroff congratulates him comes at the end of the story, when Rainsford decides to go on the offensive.  This completely took Zaroff by surprise, because Rainsford does not try to wait it out in the wood by hiding. Presumably others have tried to wait it out. Rainsford swims to Zaroff’s house to surprise him. When Zaroff returns, he sees that Rainford is there.  He also knows that he will have to face Rainsford one on one in battle.

He says: The general sucked in his breath and smiled. "I congratulate you," he said. "You have won the game."

In this context, Rainsford presumably kills Zaroff.  We can assume this because he slept in Zaroff's bed. 

How do the different connotation and tone portrayed in the "hips" and the "high heels" scenes from The House on Mango Street compare and...

Connotation has to do with the popular meaning of a word or concept. Tone refers to the author's attitude conveyed in the story. Since The House on Mango Street is told from Esperanza's perspective, her understanding behind the "hips" and "high heels" might be different than what an adult or younger child might understand. For example, in "The Family of Little Feet," Esperanza and her friends walk around their neighborhood wearing lemon-colored high heels. They are feeling grown up and pretty as they practice crossing their legs when they sit or making "the shoes talk back to you with every step" (40). The tone for this scene is fun and happy as the girls pretend to be women in these womanly shoes. The connotation of high heels, to the girls, has to do with feeling pretty and grown up. However, the tone and connotation changes when Rachel asks a bum if he thinks the shoes are pretty. To the bum, high heels connote prostitution, and he offers Rachel a dollar to kiss him. The tone changes from fun to creepy, with a little bit of seriousness mixed in, because Esperanza says, "She is young and dizzy to hear so many sweet things in one day, even if it is a bum man's whiskey words saying them" (41). This coming-of-age experience teaches Esperanza, and hopefully Rachel, not to discuss high heels and other such things with strangers—especially older men on the street.

The coming-of-age theme continues in "Hips" as the older girls discuss the connotation hips have for them. The girls say that hips are for holding babies while cooking, for dancing, and to signify that a girl is turning into a woman and not a man (50). The tone of this vignette is happy, yet analytical, because the girls are excited to be getting hips and becoming women, but they are just beginning to learn about and become interested in these changes. The girls innocently talk about how hips help with bearing children, but Esperanza adds a scientific tone to the subject and says that girls need to practice how to walk correctly when they get hips, too.

Nenny, on the other hand, being younger, is oblivious to the concept or importance of hips and continues to sing her innocent jump rope songs rather than making up one about hips like the older girls. The difference behind the older girls' connotation of hips and Nenny's shows a gap between girlhood and womanhood. The vignette ends with a childlike tone as Nenny, oblivious to puberty and womanly changes, continues to sing her childish jump rope songs. "She is in a world we don't belong to anymore," says Esperanza (52).

What is a way to begin an analysis paper with "Eveline," "A&P," and "Soldier's Home" in one essay?

One way that you can begin an analysis paper on these three stories is with an observation of how the surroundings in which person is immersed affects her or him.

This observation aligns with what the British writer W. Somerset Maugham once wrote,

It is very difficult to know people. For men and women are not only themselves, they are also the region in which they are born...the games they have played as children, the old wives' tales they overheard, the food they eat, the schools they have attended, the sports they follow, the poets they read, and the God they believe in.

These observations of Maugham hold so true in the case of Eveline in which her paralysis, as Joyce terms her inability to act, prevents her from breaking the hold of the religious promise she has made and her pledge to her dying mother to keep the family together. Moreover, her Irish culture holds her back from leaving the country with Frank as she reflects, 

It was hard work--a hard life--but now that she was about to leave it she did not find it a wholly undesirable life.

Eveline's paralysis caused by her environment of Irish Catholicism prevents her leaving home.

• "Soldier's Home"

In "Soldier's Home," by contrast, it is Harold Krebs who has changed because he has been pulled from his environment and, while he yet retains his love for his family, he cannot return to all that he once was because of his horrific experiences in the war. That is, as Thomas Wolfe wrote, he "cannot go home again" to the ingenuous youth that he was when he was drafted. For,he finds that the only way he can exist in his former surroundings is to lie about the war and to act like a child with his mother. "He wanted his life to go smoothly." Krebs escapes his environment, but must disconnect from his old identity.

In John Updike's story, somewhat as in Hemingway's narrative, the protagonist rejects his environment. However, in his rebellion against the "establishment" as represented by store manager Lengel and the varicose vein women, Sammy's ideas are but romantic illusions. So, when he quits his job as a chivalric gesture meant to impress Queenie, he finds himself alone because she and her friends have promptly left the store. Sammy stands outside the store and realizes he is yet dwelling in a complex world; furthermore, he learns that compromise with his environment is needed, not his romanticized rejection which has left him isolated when he cannot afford isolation as can Krebs.

In The Giver, does Jonas go to Elsewhere?

At the end of the book, it is safe to assume he reaches Elsewhere. We are never told what Elsewhere looks like, so we have to make this assumption based on other details we do know.

It has taken Jonas days to travel from his community, the search planes are no longer flying overhead, he and Gabriel have passed through several types of landscapes and weather that do not appear within their community, and the house they finally are headed towards has Christmas lights (his community doesn't have these). All of these details lead us to believe he has reached a place different than his own community and not like the surrounding (yet similar) communities in his area - so we think he has reached Elsewhere.

What were the changes in the U.S. on the home front during WW2?

World War II caused many changes on the home front.  One of the largest changes was that a significant percentage of working age men went overseas to fight.  This led to major changes in the workforce.  Women, who typically were housewives when married, had to go to work to meet workforce demands.  There were additional demands because of increased production of war related materials (from parachutes to tanks).  

Food became rationed, and distribution of food products were regulated by the ration boards.  Gasoline was also regulated, and common items such as rubber, steel, and grease were collected in drives to be used for the war effort.  There was fear that the Japanese or Germans could attack on U.S. soil, so many houses had black out curtains, which they used during black out drills.  Families also were supposed to have certain supplies on hand in the event of an attack.  This was a time of both fear and unity in the United States.  There was fear that the U.S. could lose the fight or that the United States would be attacked.  There was also unity as Americans got behind the war effort.

What were the destructive effects of Mt. Pinatubo eruption?

The destructive effects of the Mt. Pinatubos eruption were enormous and far-reaching.  Tons of volcanic ash heaped immeasurable harm to houses, rice paddies, fields, and the two military bases in the Philippines.  The ash, when combined with rain, produced mud flows that buried houses and cars.  Fields and rice paddies that were covered by igneous rock formations when the volcano erupted are still being recovered to this day.

Any time a volcano actively erupts, there are several concerns that must be considered by scientists and emergency responders to preserve lives and property.  Mt. Pinatubos eruption was forecast in 1991, so it gave geologists time to warn the people, who made their homes in and around the volcano, to evacuate.  Over 5,000 lives were saved by scientists' ability to predict the eruption along with the preservation of a quarter-billion dollars in property.  Air traffic was diverted around the Philippines so as to avert air crash disasters.  The second largest modern day volcanic eruption had its day of destruction yet was not as catastrophically destructive as it might have been.

How did the government in Fahrenheit 451 gain control over the people?

Near the end of Part 1, Beatty explains to Montag how the government gained control over the society, including why reading literature is banned. He explains that the people gave up their rights in the name of equality. But, according to Beatty, the move away from books came with the advent of mass media—movies, condensed versions of novels, etc.—and the need for citizens to have information so "you can read all the classics; keep up with your neighbors."

In addition, this movement resulted in the desire to forbid people, regardless of their ethnicity or minority status, to feel sorry for themselves. Today, this would be called "political correctness," but according to Beatty, the new laws were instituted because "we can't have our minorities upset and stirred." 

Beatty goes on to explain how and why minorities have been upset and speaks about Little Black Sambo and Uncle Tom's Cabin, but he continues to discuss how society, in total, would rather not think about these things. He says society would rather focus on other ideas, such as mass media and sports. 

The end game, in regards to the new government controls, was to have firemen be "custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferiors; official censors, judges, and executors."  At the end, Beatty says that government did not take control of the people, rather the people gave the government control.

What are some quotes from a Christmas Carol that describe Ebenezer Scrooge's physical appearance?

At the beginning of the story, in Stave I, we get a physical description intermingled with a description of his personality. 

"The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin" (Stave I).

So, he has thin lips, has a grating voice, and a wiry chin. We also know he is an old man because a few lines later it says that "Old Scrooge" would sit in his counting house. He is also the uncle of an adult man, Fred, so we know he is older in years. Other than this, we do not have a lot in the text that physically describes the current Scrooge.

The original story came with illustrations, so we know a lot from those. They show an old, white, shriveled and wrinkled man in his bed clothes, a night cap and slippers. He looks skinny and a bit short. He is mostly balding, but what hair he has left is white. 

What are the differences between a satire and a mock epic work?

A mock-epic can be considered as a form of satire, except that it specifically critiques classical stereotypes of heroes or heroic literature. For example, a foolish character may in fact be the hero. Or the protagonist’s heroic qualities are greatly exaggerated, oftentimes to the point of absurdity. Usually the mock-epic takes the form of a poem and addresses trivial subjects. Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock is an example of a mock-epic as he treats the theft of a lock of hair as comparable to the events that started the Trojan War.

A satire employs irony, exaggeration, and humor to critique society as a whole. A classic example is Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Satire in this form generally seeks to expose the shortcomings of society, individuals, or humanity as a whole in an attempt to encourage improvement or reform. “Saturday Night Live” is an example of satire as used on television. Politicians or well-known figures are often parodied or criticized for their shortcomings. A contemporary American author, Kurt Vonnegut, heavily relies on satire in Breakfast for Champions and Slaughterhouse-Five.

Goodman Brown begins “doubting whether there really was a heaven above him”. Why? What events cause him to begin to doubt?

In the story, Goodman Brown starts to doubt the reality of Heaven after witnessing discrepancies in the actions of well-respected church leaders.

At the beginning of the story, we see that our protagonist approaches his 'evil purpose' with trepidation. He laments that he has gone as far as he has on this treacherous errand.

"My father never went into the woods on such an errand, nor his father before him. We have been a race of honest men and good Christians, since the days of the martyrs. And shall I be the first of the name of Brown, that ever took this path and kept--"

However, the Devil shocks Goodman Brown by telling him that he is well acquainted with his father and grandfather. After all, Goodman Brown's father participated in the Salem persecution of the Quakers, while his grandfather participated in torching Indian villages during King Phillip's War.

The Devil continues to torment Goodman Brown by stating that various well-respected church deacons, religious elders, town leaders, judges, and even the Governor of Massachusetts count him among their friends. Goodman Brown is deeply disturbed when he hears this, but he tries to make the excuse that, since he doesn't have any real interactions with these leaders, he cannot be expected to make a judgment on their motives. However, he balks at possibly meeting his priest or minister while out on his evil errand.

At this, the Devil laughs uproariously. We see why when both travelers come across Dame Goody Cloyse. This is the woman who has taught Goodman Brown his catechism. Goodman Brown is deeply dismayed when he hears this supposedly devout woman boast about being anointed with witches' herbs and 'the fat of a newborn babe.' When Goody Cloyse subsequently complains about another witch possibly appropriating her broom for her own use, Goodman Brown has heard quite enough. He loudly asserts that he will not take another step with his devilish companion.

The Devil, however, advises Goodman Brown to rest for a bit, stressing that he may change his mind as he contemplates his situation. While being left alone, Goodman Brown sees yet another scene which causes him to doubt the reality of God and heaven. As hoofs thunder towards his direction, he spies his minister and Deacon Gookin talking animatedly about their macabre errand. Both are on their way to the satanic congregation of witches and devils. What's more, Deacon Gookin exclaims excitedly about a 'goodly young woman to be taken into communion' at the convocation of sinners.

At this, Goodman Brown feels 'faint and overburthened with the heavy sickness of his heart.' He begins to doubt his senses and his own prevailing faith in everything he has ever been taught. If every devout religious leader he knows is really evil at heart, what hope does he have that heaven is real? Goodman Brown is so shaken that he finds it difficult to continue on his journey.

What could Daniel not escape from that was aggravating to him in Chapter 5 of The Bronze Bow?

In Chapter 5 of The Bronze Bow, Daniel leaves Rosh's camp on the mountain to go to search for Joel, who he hopes will join Rosh's band. In the city of Capernaum, Daniel cannot escape the sight of the Roman soldiers. They are in the streets, on the docks, and in the marketplace. Daniel hates the Romans--his hatred of them for killing his father and uncle is the driving force of his life. Living on the mountain as he has for years, he has not had to see the Romans very much, although he lives for the day they will do battle and drive them out of Judea. As he watches the Romans with hatred, he is astounded that the Jews in the city go on about their business, paying no attention to the soldiers. He even sees some Jews joking with Romans, and he finds that "shameful." He believes Rosh would make them understand, and he questions why Jesus doesn't do anything against the Romans. So outwardly, he cannot escape the sight of the Roman soldiers, but more importantly, he is unable to escape his own hatred toward them.

Who is Doodle in "The Scarlet Ibis"?

Doodle is one of the main characters in James Hurst's short story "The Scarlet Ibis" about two brothers growing up in the early part of the 20th century on the coast of North Carolina. Doodle is the second son of a farming family that grows cotton. He is born with several physical problems and at first he is a great disappointment to his brother who yearns for a playmate who can run, swim and box with him. Doodle is described:

He was born when I was six and was, from the outset, a disappointment. He seemed all head, with a tiny body which was red and shriveled like an old man's. Everybody thought he was going to die...

Because of the way he crawls Doodle, whose real name is William Armstrong, is named after a bug:

It was I who renamed him. When he crawled, he crawled backwards, as if he were in reverse and couldn't change gears. If you called him, he'd turn around as if he were going in the other direction, then he'd back right up to you to be picked up. Crawling backward made him look like a doodlebug, so I began to call him Doodle, and in time even Mama and Daddy thought it was a better name than William Armstrong. 

Eventually Doodle and his brother become inseparable companions, spending hours exploring the marshlands around their home. Doodle's brother is the narrator and he tells the story from many years after the events took place. Because he is embarrassed by having a crippled brother, the narrator sets out to improve Doodle physically. He is successful in teaching him to walk, but fails in attempts to make him as vigorous as other young boys his age. Eventually Doodle dies from internal bleeding after being pushed too hard by his brother, who is frustrated by Doodle's lack of progress.

Doodle is a sensitive, imaginative and determined young boy. When the narrator brings Doodle to Old Woman Swamp the boy shows his appreciation for the beauty of nature:

His eyes were round with wonder as he gazed about him, and his little hands began to stroke the rubber grass. Then he began to cry. “For heaven’s sake, what’s the matter?” I asked, annoyed. “It’s so pretty,” he said. “So pretty, pretty, pretty.”

Doodle also has a vivid imagination. While spending time in nature the two boys share their thoughts, and like all young boys they create fantasy stories with strange characters and settings:

People in his stories all had wings and flew wherever they wanted to go. His favorite lie was about a boy named Peter who had a pet peacock with a ten-foot tail. Peter wore a golden robe that glittered so brightly that when he walked through the sunflowers they turned away from the sun to face him. When Peter was ready to go to sleep, the peacock spread his magnificent tail, enfolding the boy gently like a closing go-to-sleep flower, burying him in the glorious iridescent, rustling vortex.

Doodle exhibits his determination when the scarlet ibis lands in the "bleeding tree." He is the first to see the bird and he witnesses its death:

At that moment the bird began to flutter, but the wings were uncoordinated, and amid much flapping and a spray of flying feathers, it tumbled down, bumping through the limbs of the bleeding tree and landing at our feet with a thud. 

Doodle recognizes the exotic beauty of the bird and insists on burying the ibis, even though the shovel he uses is bigger than he is. The bird, of course, is a symbol for Doodle. It is a rare bird, not unlike the peacock in his story, far from its home and rendered fragile by its long journey. It has been thrown off course by the tumultuous weather, which is a peripheral element of the story and represents the turbulent relationship between the two brothers. Doodle is also "special" and fragile. The description of Doodle's death mirrors the death of the bird in the story's final lines:

He lay very awkwardly, with his head thrown far back, making his vermilion neck appear unusually long and slim. His little legs, bent sharply at the knees, had never before seemed so fragile, so thin. 

Why does Elizabeth marry Darcy in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice?

By the end of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth decides to marry Darcy because she has come to realize what a genuinely caring, selfless, goodhearted man Darcy truly is and that she had severely, prejudicedly misjudged him.

Elizabeth first begins to realize how severely she had misjudged Darcy after reading his letter to her. In his letter, he justifies his opinion that the Bennet family is beneath him by reminding her of all the ways the Bennet family members have acted with impropriety, especially Elizabeth's flirtatious younger sisters, her gossiping mother, and her father for failing to control his own family. More importantly, he corrects her judgement of him by giving his own account of why relations between himself and Wickham have grown cold. His own account is that Wickham refused to take the living the late Mr. Darcy left him, asked Darcy for £300 with the professed purpose of studying law instead, lived recklessly, and attempted to elope with Darcy's 15-year-old sister to try and gain her fortune. The information in Darcy's letter rocks Elizabeth to her core. She feels "absolutely ashamed of herself" for having so severely misjudged both Darcy and Wickham (Ch. 36). She is shocked to realize that, after having taken pride in her own "discernment," she could have been so "blind, partial, prejudiced, and absurd" (Ch. 36).

Elizabeth further realizes just how much she had severely misjudged Darcy when she visits the Pemberley estate while traveling with her Aunt and Uncle Gardiner. While being given a tour of the manor by the housekeeper, Elizabeth is amazed to hear Darcy being so highly praised by his servants. Yet, the most influential moment is when she learns from Lydia's gossip, as well as from her Aunt Gardiner's letter, that Darcy had bribed Wickham into marrying Lydia, thereby saving Lydia's reputation, as well as the reputation of the entire Bennet family. Elizabeth felt that Darcy's only motive for having done so was because he felt personally responsible for Lydia's situation since he could have publicly exposed the nature of Wickham's character but had failed to do so out of pride. Darcy's behavior was enough to tell her what a genuinely goodhearted person he truly is. Hence, by the time Elizabeth's father protests against Elizabeth accepting Darcy's proposal in Chapter 59, Elizabeth is able to reply, "I love him. Indeed he has no improper pride. He is perfectly amiable. You do not know what he really is," showing us just how greately her opinion of Darcy had changed throughout the novel (Ch. 59).

What are some things readers learn about Pi in chapters 1-8 that show direct and indirect characterization?

The shifts in perspective throughout the first eight chapters of Life of Pi give the reader a mix of direct and indirect characterization.

In terms of direct characterization, the audience receives physical descriptions of an older Pi through a third-person narrator:

He's a small, slim man - no more than five foot  five. Dark hair, dark eyes.... Expressive face. Speaks quietly, hands flitting about.

Otherwise, at least early in the book, the reader receives very little direct description of Pi. This seems to indicate that Pi is more concerned with the make up of his mind, his character, and his outlook, than with his physical comfort or disposition.

Conversely, Pi delivers a wealth of indirect characterization in these early chapters. He demonstrates a love of learning, social sensitivity, personal advocacy, judgement of character, and a respect for knowledge (both scientific and mystical). This information is demonstrated through conversations with other characters and through exposition.

Who invented the hamster ball?

This is a very interesting question, and one which doesn't have an easy answer. One way to find out who invented something is to conduct a patent search on the US Patent and Trademark website (see sources). If you find the USPTO website confusing, you can also try using Google Patent search, also linked below.

The first patent for a free rolling animal enclosure I could find was granted to Edward Carvell in 1954. However, his device was cylindrical in form. Patent No. US2681638

A spherical hamster ball doesn't show up until 1992 and is credited to Michael Keeling, William Britz, Jr. and David Clark. Patent No. US5116255

However, we can look even farther back. The first patent for a rotating bird cage was granted in 1883! Patent No. US277724

There is even a cylindrical version mounted on a stand intended for human use in 1908. Patent No. US883485

So while a preliminary patent search seems to indicate Keeling, Britz and Clark invented the hamster ball, this may not be totally correct. Now all inventions are patented. Additionally, the invention of the hamster ball built on previous inventions in rolling cages, so credit may be due to some of those inventors as well. Also, I only searched US patents. A hamster ball like device may have been documented earlier in another country. 

What is a potential response for an essay on the topic: How does power corrupt Macbeth?

The essay topic given to you has a number of different responses that one can give.  The most robust response will discuss the corruption of a man one was given the chance to become powerful and then he continued to commit terrible actions in order to remain powerful. Macbeth, in the early part of the play, commits an act that is extraordinarily out of character in order to gain power and fulfill the witches' prophecies.  When the reader first meets Macbeth, he is a strong and noble man who is a fierce warrior and a loyal subject.  Along these lines, the murder of King Duncan is far out of character for Macbeth.  This first murder and the power that comes with attaining the title of king allows Macbeth to pursue more and more evildoing in order to secure further power.  For example, he kills his close friend Banquo to ensure that Banquo's blood line will not take over the crown.  Then he murders MacDuff's family in order to fend off the possibility that MacDuff might bring him harm.  From the moment that Macbeth is enticed by the witches' prophecy, his pursuit of power (blind ambition) leads him to commit more and more bloodshed.  

A sample thesis statement that you might consider would be: Shakespeare's Macbeth demonstrates that the pursuit of power will inevitably lead to the loss of oneself as one continues to commit more and more evil deeds to secure the power one desires. 

Are lipids present in glucose?

Lipids are one of the four classes of biological macromolecules. The other three classes are carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids. Lipids are more commonly referred to as fats or oils.

Glucose has the chemical formula C6H12O6. Glucose is a type of sugar. All sugars are carbohydrates.

Thus, no, lipids are not present in glucose.

However, glucose is sometimes attached to lipids. A lipid which has an attached glucose molecule is said to have been glycosylated. However, this term is not unique to glucose - any lipid with an attached carbohydrate molecules is said to be glycosylated. There are many types of carbohydrates besides glucose.

So while glucose does not contain lipids and is not a type of lipid, lipids may have glucose (or another sugar or carbohydrate) attached. 

What are the effects of materialism on Pip?

Though Pip was born in a working-class environment, he is still used to some measure of comfort. He is not hungry or cold, but he does not have as much as he learns to want. With his introduction to the higher social class of Miss Havisham and Estella, he sees a lifestyle that he greatly desires. Once Estella shames him for his clothes and manners, he wants more than he’s got. With the revelation of his “great expectations,” Pip sees the chance to become a gentleman, which was very important in the Victorian social world. While his lifestyle improves greatly, it is not enough. He falls heavily into debt as he tries to live up to the materialistic world of his new companions. Interestingly, his desire for the treasured goods of society are not brought on by his closest companions (Henry Pocket, the Pocket family, Mr. Wemmick and his Aged Parent). It is through his connection to them that he eventually walks away from the materialistic life into one that is more in keeping with the friendship that has saved him from tragedy.