How does Othello's language change in Act 3?

Act 3 of Othello is pivotal for the development of the play as a tragedy. This is the place in the drama when Othello finally starts to internalize the lies and deceit that Iago has been spreading against Desdemona. Iago is a master of language, using innuendo and insinuation to turn Othello against his wife. Indeed, he doesn't need to say much to create and heighten Othello's suspicions. In scene 3, for example, the most important in the whole act, Iago's casual response to Cassio's sudden departure is entirely characteristic:

"Ha! I like not that."

Later on in the scene, Iago stirs the pot even more, but again without explicitly accusing Cassio of cuckolding Othello with Desdemona:

"I cannot think it that he would steal away so guilty-like."

This is a classic use of irony by Iago. He appears, as is his wont, all sweetly reasonable and nonjudgemental, but we all know what he's really up to.
As Othello increasingly starts to fall under Iago's malevolent spell, his language changes as he is becoming ever more intemperate and expressing his growing insecurity and lack of trust. Othello's confidence has been so undermined by the drip feed of Iago's subtle slander that he's almost starting to resent himself:

“O, that the slave had forty thousand lives! One is too poor, too weak for my revenge.”

Othello doesn't simply want to avenge his honor by destroying Cassio; he's also going to carry out revenge upon a society which disrespects his race.
Act 3 is also crucial in the development not just of the play, but of Othello's character. Prior to this moment he's been a thoroughly honest man. But since Iago has been sowing seeds of doubt for so long, he's now starting to lie and conceal his true feelings. He claims not to be coming under the spell of the "green-eyed monster" but it is as clear to us as it is to Iago that his jealousy is beginning to take root deep within his tortured soul. The explosion of hatred and anger cannot be far away:

"Arise, black vengeance, from the hollow hell!
Yield up, O love, thy crown and hearted throne
To tyrannous hate! Swell, bosom, with thy fraught,
For ’tis of aspics' tongues!"

Note that Othello has begun to develop Iago's penchant for animal imagery: "aspics' tongues."
 
Yet still Iago retains his outward show of moderation. But he's achieved his purpose. Not only has Othello become consumed by jealous rage, he's now openly expressing Iago's true thoughts, albeit with much less subtlety. Having been gradually stripped of his manhood, his dignity, and his fundamental honesty, he is now Iago's plaything. Othello and Iago are now united in a common purpose. Crucially, however, it is Othello's langauge that has changed, not Iago's, and that shows us clearly who's really in charge.
 

What happened to Dimmesdale in chapters 15-24?

In Chapters 15-24 of The Scarlet Letter, the Reverend Dimmesdale's secret sin begins to become such a burden on his soul that he suffers from the effects.
After having encountered Roger Chillingworth, who tells Hester that they are victims of fate and it is his role to be the fiend, Hester determines that she must talk with Arthur Dimmesdale. Knowing that he takes meditative walks in the forest, Hester hopes to encounter him, but she has no success until she learns that he will return from a trip one afternoon and she can cross his path in the woods. As she waits for the minister's approach, Hester tries to send Pearl off to play, but before she goes, Pearl asks why this minister holds his hand over his heart. Hester scolds the child. Then, Pearl decides that the minister places his hand this way for the same reason that her mother wears the scarlet letter. 
As the minister approaches, Hester calls to him. They both are awkward in this first encounter after seven years. Feeling rather awkward, they speak of insignificant things, but after a while, Dimmesdale asks Hester, "...hast thou found peace?" With a melancholy smile, Hester asks, "Hast thou?" "None! Nothing but despair!" he answers. He confides that he is miserable. Hester says, "The people reverence thee...and surely thou workest good among them! Doth this bring thee no comfort?" But the minister replies, "None!--nothing but despair! He tells Hester that whatever was good in him has become only spiritual torment now. "Hester, I am most miserable!" (Ch.16) Hester tries to encourage him by telling him the people have great respect for him, but Reverend Dimmesdale will not be appeased. He says he feels like a hypocrite when his "flock [are] hungry for the truth, " and they listen to his words as though "a tongue of Pentecost were speaking!" (Ch.17) Hester tells the minister his assessment of himself is wrong. "Is there no reality in the penitence thus sealed and witnessed by good works?" she asks him. (Ch.17).
Hester berates herself for having brought such woes upon the minister. It is very difficult for her to tell the Reverend Dimmesdale that Roger Chillingworth is her husband, but she feels that she must confess. This revelation causes the minister much distress to think that his sin has been exposed to the very man who would gloat over it. He tells Hester, "I cannot forgive thee!" But she insists that he forgive her, and he does, saying that Chillingworth's sin is blacker than theirs. Then, the minister worries that the old man will reveal their secret, but Hester contradicts him, stressing that Chillingworth has a secretive nature, and will seek other ways to avenge himself. Hester suggests that the minister go into the wilderness or leave the country. Dimmesdale protests that he cannot leave by himself; so, Hester promises to accompany him across the ocean. They both feel hope resurging in their hearts. In fact, Hester removes the letter from her bosom, and she tosses it. But Pearl refuses to come to her until her mother replaces this letter. Unfortunately, Dimmesdale does not relate well to the child who washes off his kiss in the brook.
After Dimmesdale agrees to leave the country, he feels as though he has been freed from his hypocrisy. Further, he has the strange urge to speak something "strange, wild, or wicked" to the people that he passes on his return home. When he refuses his medicine from the physician, Chillingworth becomes suspicious. But, nothing is said as the Reverend Dimmesdale retires to prepare his Election Day sermon. With the arrival of the New England holiday, the minister has a newfound energy, and Hester observes a different man from the one who talked with her in the woods. When he passes, the minister does not recognize her and seems beyond her reach. "Mother, was that the same minister that kissed me by the brook?" Pearl asks her mother. 
Whereas Dimmesdale has felt himself a pawn of fate, after talking with Hester, the minister now feels that he is not powerless to control his life. It is a different man who passes Hester and Pearl, but doom awaits him, Hester realizes because the captain of the ship sends word to her that Chillingworth will escort the minister onto the ship. In the meantime, the minister delivers his sermon. Weakened from the exertion of his impassioned speech, the Reverend Dimmesdale falls forward. He calls to Hester and Pearl, who stand by the scaffold. As if impelled by fate, Hester and Pearl come forward. Chillingworth catches hold of the minister, telling Dimmesdale that it is only by being on the scaffold that the minister can escape him. Then, the Dimmesdale tears open his robe, revealing "something" on his chest. He falls and is supported by Hester as he asks Pearl to kiss him. When Pearl does this, "a spell is broken." Dimmesdale dies after thanking God for his mercy in allowing him to confess and save his soul.

Define the American Dream. What role does the American Dream play in Of Mice and Men?

The American Dream is the belief that one can attain financial security, climb the social ladder, and amass wealth through sufficient hard work and perseverance. The novella is set during the Depression, which was the worst economic crisis in the history of the industrialized world, taking place between 1929 and 1939. For migrant workers like Lennie and George, their fantasy of one day owning a piece of property where they can "live off the fatta the lan'" is their idea of the American Dream. Despite being futile and impossible to attain, the American Dream offers the poor, lowly migrant workers hope for a better life. The concept of the American Dream motivates some workers to save their money and gives Lennie, George, Candy, and even Crooks hope that they will one day own an estate. The dream of financial security and owning property not only motivates the workers to continue laboring but also provides them a brief respite from their difficult lives. Tragically, Lennie accidentally kills Curley's wife, and George and Candy discover the unattainability of the American Dream, a reality which Crooks already knew. In chapter four, Crooks makes an accurate comment about the American Dream when he tells Candy,

I seen hunderds of men come by on the road an’ on the ranches, with their bindles on their back an’ that same damn thing in their heads. Hunderds of them. They come, an’ they quit an’ go on; an’ every damn one of ‘em’s got a little piece of land in his head. An’ never a God damn one of ‘em ever gets it. Just like heaven. Ever’body wants a little piece of lan’. I read plenty of books out here. Nobody never gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land. It’s just in their head. (Steinbeck, 36)

In the 1930's, the setting of Steinbeck's novella, Of Mice and Men, the American Dream was defined as the opportunity to work hard and achieve the socio-economic level that a person seeks.

According to James Truslow Adams, who coined the phrase "American Dream" in 1931, the American Dream is simply for everyone to have equal opportunity to live a better and more prosperous life. [https://www.reference.com/history/american-dream-1930s-809757d5533c5a2a]

For the bindle stiffs of Steinbeck's narrative, the American Dream is simply to have a home and a good job that will provide financial comfort. Financial security is certainly a real dream during the Depression when men must  try to find jobs and meals each day, sometimes, or at least move from job to job.The dream of owning a small farm with rabbits and gardens is clearly the hope for security and happiness for Lennie and George. This hope that the American Dream offers is what keeps them and others working and saving money in the hope of attaining certain goals.

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 3, 3.5, Section 3.5, Problem 59

y=cos^-1((b+acos(x))/(a+bcos(x)))
y'=((-1)/sqrt(1-((b+acos(x))/(a+bcos(x)))^2))* d/(dx) ((b+acos(x))/(a+bcos(x)))
y'=-(a+bcos(x))/sqrt((a+bcos(x))^2-(b+acos(x))^2) *d/(dx) (b+acos(x))(a+bcos(x))^-1
y'=(-(a+bcos(x)))/sqrt((a^2+b^2cos^2(x) +2abcos(x)) -(b^2+a^2cos^2(x) +2abcos(x))) * ((b+acos(x))(-1)(a+bcos(x))^(-2)(-bsin(x)) + (a+bcos(x))^(-1)(-asin(x)))
y'=(-(a+bcos(x)))/sqrt(a^2+b^2cos^2(x)-b^2-a^2cos^2(x)) *(((bsin(x))(b+acos(x)))/(a+bcos(x))^2 + (-asin(x))/((a+bcos(x))))
y'=(-(a+bcos(x)))/sqrt((a^2-b^2-(a^2-b^2)cos^2(x))) *((bsin(x)(b+acos(x)) -(asin(x))(a+bcos(x)))/(a+bcos(x))^2)
y'=(-(a+bcos(x)))/sqrt((a^2-b^2)(1-cos^2(x))) *((b^2sin(x) + a*bsin(x)cos(x) -a^2sin(x)- a*bsin(x)cos(x))/(a+bcos(x))^2)
y'=(-(b^2-a^2)sin(x))/((a+bcos(x))(sqrt((a^2-b^2)sin^2(x))))
y'=((a^2-b^2)sin(x))/((sin(x)(a+bcos(x))sqrt(a^2-b^2)))
y'=(a^2-b^2)/(sqrt(a^2-b^2) (a+bcos(x)))
y'=sqrt(a^2-b^2)/(a+bcos(x))

What are some examples of Johnny Cade being intelligent?

There are several scenes throughout the novel that depict Johnny Cade displaying his intelligence. In Chapter 4, immediately after Johnny saves Ponyboy's life by stabbing a Soc, Ponyboy realizes their predicament and begins to panic. Johnny calms Ponyboy down and says, "We'll need money. And maybe a gun. And a plan" (Hinton 50). When Ponyboy asks Johnny where in the world they would be able to get such things, Johnny answers by telling him that they need to go find Dally. Johnny then informs Pony that Dally is at a party at Buck Merrill's home. Johnny's ability think of a plausible way to get out of town by consulting Dally displays his intelligence. He does not panic and thinks clearly in a stressful situation.
Another scene throughout the novel that depicts Johnny's intelligence takes place in Chapter 5. Ponyboy and Johnny read Gone With the Wind while they are hiding out and Pony mentions,

"It amazed me how Johnny could get more meaning out of some of the stuff in there than I could--- I was supposed to be the deep one" (Hinton 65).

Although Johnny struggled in the school, his ability to understand and analyze the text portrays his intelligence.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 7, 7.4-1, Section 7.4-1, Problem 48

Find the derivative of the function $y = \sqrt{x^x}$, using log differentiation

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\ln y &= \ln \sqrt{x^x}\\
\\
\ln y &= \ln x^{\frac{x}{2}}\\
\\
\ln y &= \frac{x}{2} \ln x\\
\\
\frac{d}{dx} \ln y &= \frac{x}{2} \frac{d}{dx} (\ln x) + \ln x \frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{x}{2} \right)\\
\\
\frac{1}{y} \frac{dy}{dx} &= \frac{\cancel{x}}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{\cancel{x}} + \ln x \cdot \frac{1}{2}\\
\\
\frac{1}{y} y' &= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \ln x\\
\\
\frac{y'}{y} &= \frac{1+ \ln x}{2}\\
\\
y' &= y \left( \frac{1+ \ln x}{2} \right)\\
\\
y' &= \sqrt{x^x} \left( \frac{1+\ln x}{2} \right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Who is the most forceful member of the Merrick family?

One could argue that Mrs. Merrick, the late sculptor's mother, is the most forceful member of the family. She dominates everyone around her with her violent, domineering personality. For good measure, she is also a drama queen whose histrionic display upon seeing her son's coffin convinces absolutely no one of her grief's sincerity. Generally speaking, the sculptor's hometown is trapped in a state of paralysis. Although Mrs. Merrick is as much a part of this town's life as anyone, she does at least give the impression of being a full-blooded human being, which is more than can be said for most other folk in Sand City.
On the other hand, it could also be said that Laird is the most forceful character in the story as a whole. It is his bitter, passionate tirade toward the end that administers a needed dose of truth to the assembled mourners. But because Laird's outburst can be easily dismissed as the ravings of an alcoholic, it is unlikely that the townsfolk will pay much heed to him and face up to the truth of what Sand City does to free, creative spirits. Instead, they will almost certainly go on much as they have always done, with Mrs. Merrick continuing to stand out among them as one of the town's most forceful characters.

What is Jane Addams's view on immigrants? At times, it seems that she blames them for a lot of short comings.

Jane Addams's view on immigrants was complicated. On one hand, Addams welcomed immigrants into Hull House and wanted to improve their lives and station in America. On the other hand, Addams resented many of the “Old World” ways that immigrants brought with them to America, and Addams tried her best to change those ways.
Hull House was established in Chicago’s West Side in 1889 as a settlement house for recently arrived immigrants. (During this period, many of the recently arrived immigrants to Chicago would have been from Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland.) Addams's goal with Hull House was to “Americanize” immigrants—that is, to teach immigrants English, American customs and values, and Protestantism.
For the most part, Addams was critical of immigrants in regards to their religion. Many of the immigrants to Chicago during this period were Catholic, and Addams was a fervent Protestant. Addams was a leader of the anticlerical movement in the US, which criticized the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants, like Addams, believed that there was no need for a spiritual advisor (bishops, priests, the pope) between an individual and God. Furthermore, as a part of her “Americanization” process for immigrants, Addams encouraged many Catholics to convert to Protestantism, since Protestantism was the predominant religion in the US.
While Addams's views may seem insensitive to us today, we must remember that many Americans shared in this view during the time. Moreover, many Americans resented immigrants and immigration altogether. So Addams's complicated views were in line with the complicated times.
For more information, see: James R. Barrett, The Irish Way: Becoming American in the Multiethnic City (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2013).

How did the commodity of sugar play an important role in cultural exchange and the development of world capitalism?

After the Portuguese began to cultivate sugar in Brazil, the commodity was introduced into Europe, immediately becoming immensely popular for its addictive nature and ability to make food taste so much sweeter. Sugarcane was then introduced, in the 1600s, to the Caribbean, and its cultivation gave rise to a transatlantic trade that led to cultural exchange and the growth of capitalism.
In the so-called "triangle trade" that resulted from growing sugarcane, European nations captured slaves in West Africa who were brought to the New World in a brutal journey called the "Middle Passage." In the West Indies, slaves, who were used to grow sugar, were traded for sugarcane that was then transported to mainland North America and to Western Europe. In order to purchase slaves in Africa, European nations, mainly England, began developing industries to produce manufactured goods such as textiles, rum, guns, and other products. This process resulted in the development of the banking industry and the beginning of capitalism. The transatlantic trade also resulted in the exchange of products and cultures and the growth of new cultures as slaves were forcibly brought to the New World and intermarried with whites, Native Americans, and others. In the process, their traditions combined with those of the New World, giving rise to rich new cultures. 

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 2, 2.2, Section 2.2, Problem 6

The graph function $h$ is given, state the value of each quantity, if it exists. If it does not exist, explain why.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{a.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3^-} h(x) &
\text{b.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3^+} h(x)&
\text{c.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3} h(x)\\

\text{d.) }& h(-3) &
\text{e.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^-} h(x) &
\text{f.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^+} h(x) \\

\text{g.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0} h(x) &
\text{h.) }& h(0) &
\text{i.) }& \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 2} h(x) \\

\text{j.) }& h(2)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$






a. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3^-} h(x) = 4$

b. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3^+} h(x) = 4$

c. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow -3} h(x) = 4$

d. Referring to the graph given $h(-3)$ does not exist because the value at that point is not defined, it is an empty circle.

e. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^-} h(x) = 1$

f. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^+} h(x) = -1$

g. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0} h(x)$ does not exist because
$\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^+} h(x)$ does not equal $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^-} h(x)$

h. Referring to the graph given $h(0) = 1$

i. Referring to the graph given $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 2} h(x) = 2$

j. Referring to the graph given $h(2)$ does not exist because the function is not defined at that point.

McDougal Littell Algebra 2, Chapter 5, 5.2, Section 5.2, Problem 36

Okay Lets start with multiply 3 by 10 which will equal...
10X3=30
Now we have to have multiples of 30 that when add/subtracted will gives us the middle term so 17x
2x15=30 15+2 this will gives us 17. Now replace these two numbers with the middle term
3x^2+17x+10
(3x^2+2x)+(15x+10) Now take out the number that each expression is divisible by
x(3x+2)+5(3x+2) The expressions in the parentheses should match because it will only be one expression for the final equation. The second expression will be the combination of the two terms you got when you took out the number the expressions were divisible by
(3x+2)(x+5) And you got the answer!

Precalculus, Chapter 9, 9.5, Section 9.5, Problem 37

You need to use the binomial formula, such that:
(x+y)^n = sum_(k=0)^n ((n),(k)) x^(n-k) y^k
You need to replace 2/x for x, y for y and 4 for n, such that:
(2/x - y)^4 = 4C0 (2/x)^4+4C1 (2/x)^3*(-y)^1+4C2 (2/x)^2*(-y)^2+4C3 (2/x)^1*(-y)^3 + 4C4 3a*(-y)^4
By definition, nC0 = nCn = 1, hence 4C0 = 4C4 = 1.
By definition nC1 = nC(n-1) = n, hence 4C1 = 4C3 = 4.
By definition nC2 = (n(n-1))/2 , hence 4C2 = 6 .
(2/x - y)^4 = 16/(x^4)- (32y)/(x^3)+ (24y^2)/(x^2)- (8y^3)/x + y^4
Hence, expanding the number using binomial theorem yields the simplified result (2/x - y)^4 = 16/(x^4)- (32y)/(x^3)+ (24y^2)/(x^2)- (8y^3)/x + y^4.

How was Reagan’s Challenger speech influenced by the Cold War?

The Cold War and its tensions are subtly woven into the fabric of Reagan's Challenger speech. Primarily, the speech is concerned with mourning the astronauts tragically killed in the space shuttle disaster. Reagan also wanted to reassure a shocked nation that though this was a setback to the United States' space program, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the matter. American space exploration would continue.
Reagan's confidence in the future of the space program wasn't just an expression of facile optimism; it was a clear message that the United States would continue to compete with the USSR in the space race—an intensely fierce competition that the United States didn't always win.
President Reagan never mentions the Cold War explicitly in his speech, but the oblique reference to US–Soviet tensions in the following remarks is inescapable:

We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute.

At the time of the Challenger disaster, the Soviet Union's rival space program was still highly classified. Reagan draws attention to this fact, though without directly mentioning the Soviets. The United States space program, with its openness and accessibility, is used by Reagan as a symbol of American freedom, a freedom he implies is not shared by the Soviets.
https://history.nasa.gov/reagan12886.html

What is the relationship between level of education and political violence in America?

First, one should note that there is a strong correlation between poverty and violence and an equally strong correlation between educational level and income. In general, people of low socioeconomic status (something that includes income, prestige, and education) are more likely to have unstable home environments as children and end up caught up in cycles of abuse, crime, drugs, and violence than those from more stable or affluent homes. Of course, this is not always the case as affluent people can be victims and perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence, but in general, low socioeconomic status correlates with increased exposure to violence as both victim and perpetrator.
Terrorism and other forms of political violence show a distinctly different socioeconomic pattern than more general forms of violence, being correlated with higher socioeconomic status. Political involvement usually requires education (to read and study complex information), access to technology, and free time, all correlated with higher socioeconomic status. Recruits to Islamic terrorist groups appear on the average to be wealthier and better educated than their compatriots.
In the United States, there seems to be little obvious correlation between political violence and educational attainment. Dylann Storm Roof was a high school drop out. Timothy James McVeigh had started but not completed college. Theodore John Kaczynski (the "Unabomber") had a PhD in mathematics. Major Nidal Malik Hasan had a medical degree. Members of the alt-right and neo-Nazi groups are not distinguished by having significantly different educational backgrounds than members of mainstream political parties. Although it would be comforting to think that education might be a cure for political violence, there is no strong empirical evidence that such is the case.
http://www.sas.rochester.edu/psc/clarke/214/Lee11.pdf

What did FDR want to do to help prevent another Great Depression?

There were several things that President Franklin Roosevelt tried to do to prevent another Great Depression from happening. President Roosevelt worked to reform the banking industry. With the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, savings accounts were initially insured up to $2,500. Also, commercial banks were prevented from taking investors' money and investing it in the stock market. The Securities Act was passed, and it stated that companies had to provide accurate information to investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission was formed to regulate the stock market and to work to prevent fraud.
President Roosevelt wanted to get people back to work. A series of programs was created, including the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration, and the Civil Works Administration, to help people get back to work. President Roosevelt hoped that if more people were working, the economy would begin to grow.
President Roosevelt also wanted to provide seniors with an income and to provide help to those people who were unemployed. The Social Security Act gave a pension to those who were 65 or older and unemployment benefits to people who weren’t working. President Roosevelt hoped that if older people and those who were unemployed had money, they would spend it, which would benefit the economy and help it grow.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, President Roosevelt created a mindset that the government should act as a safety net in case the economy hit a slump. He hoped that with his programs and with a change in perspective about the role of the government, another Great Depression wouldn’t occur.
https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal

What are the special features of Thomas Gray elegy?

I assume you mean Thomas Grey's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" (1751). Grey's " Elegy" is a lovely poem, rich in description and meaning. It isn't a formal elegy in any sense (since it doesn't really eulogize any particular individual) but is more of a reflection on death and the fragility of life.
The poem is set in a small country graveyard, and the poet is moved by this setting to reflect on death—and by extension, life. He praises the lives of the simple working people buried in this country churchyard.

Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor.

He suggests it is perhaps better to live an unadorned life free from ambition than to seek fame and power at the expense of others. In this sense the poem venerates a certain brand of stoicism.
One of the special features of the poem is the language, which captures some of the stylistic informality of an earlier linguistic age. In this respect it sits on the cusp of the transformation from Shakespearean English to the modern, rigid form of the language we know today.
Finally, the last few stanzas, "the epitaph", are almost an attempt on the part of the poet to conceive of his own elegy:

Here rests his head upon the lap of Earth
A youth to Fortune and to Fame unknown.
Fair Science frown'd not on his humble birth,
And Melancholy mark'd him for her own.

In actual fact fame did smile on Thomas Grey, as this is one of the best known poems in the English language.

What does "Brexit means Brexit" actually mean?

The phrase “Brexit means Brexit” means that Brexit will take place, regardless of the implications of any other elections or political events.  In particular, it means that Britain will exit the European Union even though Theresa May, who was in favor of remaining in the Union, is now Prime Minister.
After the Brexit vote, the main leaders who were in favor of Brexit have generally not done well politically.  In particular, Boris Johnson was seen as a likely candidate to lead the Conservative Party and, thus, to be Prime Minister, but he was unable to gain enough support and he decided not to run.  As it happened, May won the contest for leadership. 
Because May had backed the Remain side in the referendum, some people had thought that she might find ways to avoid actually going through with Brexit.  By saying “Brexit means Brexit,” May sought/seeks to put those ideas to rest.  She wants to make it clear that she will abide by the vote and that she will initiate Britain’s exit from the EU.  This is what “Brexit means Brexit” actually means.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-means-brexit-and-that-means-there-will-be-no-debate-on-freedom-of-movement-a7224066.html

Where does Poe use punctuation or repeated words or phrases to show the mood of horror and suspense in "The Tell-Tale Heart"?

Poe uses punctuation and repetition to develop the mood of horror and to build suspense. In the first paragraph, he uses three question marks in a row. The effect is an anxious and demanding tone, which builds suspense by making the narrator unpredictable.
In the second paragraph, he uses an exclamation mark and repetition immediately. Poe writes, "Listen! Listen, and I will tell you how it happened." The exclamation mark increases the urgency and couples with the order to "Listen!" to increase the demand from the first paragraph. These devices build suspense by making the reader wonder what we are about to listen to. Throughout the story, Poe continues to use question marks and exclamation marks to build the horror.
The narrator reveals the murder he committed early on, but Poe builds the horror by slowly revealing details. With repetition and strategic punctuation, these details build the suspense. For example, Poe writes, "Slowly, little by little, I lifted the cloth, until a small, small light escaped from under it to fall upon—to fall upon that vulture eye!" By repeating "to fall upon" with an em dash, Poe slowly lifts the veil on the horrors of that night; he takes his reader to the very moments the narrator relives.
In the final paragraph, Poe's narrator illustrates his fervor with eight exclamation marks. He has committed an act of horror, and he can no longer refrain from shouting it!

What are the implications of the interactions between Walter and Beneatha, and what does their relationship contribute to the play?

Walter and Beneatha are siblings who have a complex relationship and hold different views regarding gender roles, education, and culture. Walter is older than Beneatha and does not initially support her dreams of becoming a female doctor. Walter continually antagonizes his sister for her unique views on gender issues as well as her affinity for African culture. Walter may feel intimidated or self-conscious because his sister is educated and attempting to fulfill her dreams while he works as a chauffeur. Despite their contention, there are times throughout the play when Walter and Beneatha get along and joke with each other. After Walter receives the money from Lena, his mood becomes lighter, and he jokes with Beneatha by acting like a native of Africa. Their ability to get along and act amiably illustrates what their lives would be like with financial freedom and opportunities to pursue their dreams.
Beneatha is younger than Walter and is annoyed by her brother's lack of support and understanding. She disagrees with his views regarding female roles in society, education, culture, and what to do with the insurance money. She criticizes her brother for his backward, traditional beliefs and ridicules him for losing the insurance money. She is unsympathetic towards Walter's unfortunate situation and resents him for losing the money. Despite Walter's mistake, he makes up for it by refusing to sell Lena's home back to the Clybourne Park community.
Overall, Walter and Beneatha's relationship contributes an interesting, exciting element to the play that creates tension and action in the Younger household. Their relationship also allows Hansberry to provide social commentary to the play by juxtaposing traditional versus modern perspectives.

Walter and Beneatha's relationship is one between siblings. The relationship between siblings can be simultaneously loving and contentious. There are moments in the play that reflect this. The two can be very playful with one another, as when they mimic their presumed African ancestors, and they can be resentful of one another.
Walter is about a generation older than his younger sister. He envies her opportunity to become a doctor—a feeling that he demonstrates with scorn. The play never makes it explicitly clear why Walter envies Beneatha and her collegiate friends. We do not know if he never excelled in school, if he met Ruth very young, or if there was an expectation that he go to work soon after his father's death (as he was the only remaining male in the family). However, there is the sense that Walter came along a little too soon, a little too old to engage in the race consciousness and Civil Rights movements. It is a state that leaves him feeling stuck: he has his sister's aspirations but his mother's fears.
The siblings' interactions are also impacted by gender. Often, Beneatha is discussed as a foil for her mother, Lena, who is older, religious, and patient in the face of oppression. However, it is also helpful to see her as a foil for Ruth. Beneatha is active, whereas Ruth is passive. Beneatha confronts and challenges her brother, while Ruth never does this. 

int ((sec(x)tan(x))/(sec(x) - 1)) dx Find the indefinite integral.

int (sec(x)tan(x))/(sec(x)-1)dx=
We will use the following formula: int (f'(x))/(f(x))dx=ln|f(x)|+C  
The formula tells us that if we have integral of rational function where the numerator is equal to the derivative of the denominator, then the integral is equal to natural logarithm of the denominator plus some constant. The proof of the formula can be obtained by simply integrating the right-hand side.
Since (sec(x)-1)'=sec(x)tan(x) we can apply the formula to obtain the final result.
ln|sec(x)-1|+C
                                                                                   

What inspired Thomas Paine to write Common Sense?

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was first published in January 1776, amid the American Revolution. It was inspired by the American colonies’ rebellion against taxation—which turned into a struggle for outright independence—from Britain. Given that progressive social and political change (in the form of constitutional and republican governments, as opposed to monarchical systems) was a general topic of debate among elite western European and American politicians and political commentators, it is likely that Paine was also inspired by this overarching political debate over the very nature of government and revolution. In other words, Paine was likely also inspired by Enlightenment ideas and ideals at large. It is also possible that Paine was inspired by his own background. Rather than being born into power, influence, and money, he was of humble origins and had to struggle to educate himself and gain employment. In fact, this is partially why he immigrated to America, getting a job as an editorial assistant and writer for the Pennsylvanian Magazine in Philadelphia. It was there that he became acquainted with and involved in American politics and was inspired (and encouraged by colleagues) to write Common Sense.
In this pamphlet, Paine advocated for American independence from Britain and for a republican form of government. In the introduction, he wrote, “As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question . . . and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.”
The pamphlet was immensely popular and written in a way that was accessible to all readers, not simply elite political thinkers. Therefore, it really was inspired by the American Revolution (and, in turn, inspired the revolution itself). Some have even referred to Paine as the world’s first international revolutionary.
For more information, I would recommend reading Common Sense itself, as well as Mark Philp’s introduction to the Oxford World’s Classics Thomas Paine: Rights of Man, Common Sense, and Other Political Writings.

During the American Revolutionary War, many colonists were eager to separate from England. Some people were still considering a rapprochement with England, however, and the leaders of the revolution were searching for a way to encourage the colonists that reconciliation would be a mistake.
In early 1776, Thomas Paine penned Common Sense, using plain language and persuasive prose to convince the colonists that independence was the only viable choice. After the pamphlet was circulated, popular opinion shifted, and even George Washington felt that Paine had been the deciding factor.
Before reading the pamphlet, many people still thought of themselves as British citizens and hoped for a chance to rejoin their homeland. After Common Sense, the people hungered for change and demanded a nation free from unfair taxation and the oppression of the monarchy.
https://www.thomaspainesociety.org/common-sense

What were some differences between World War I and World War II?

There were many differences between the two wars. One difference between the two wars was how they started. WWI started when the Austrian archduke was killed in Sarajevo, thus causing the alliance groups to come to each other's aid. WWII was caused by German imperialism and its invasion of Poland.
Another difference between the two conflicts was the technology used by the combatants. WWI on the Western front was fought in a series of bloody trench battles between 1914 and mid-1918. Fortifications and automatic weapons made advances costly. Neither side fully utilized the rudimentary tanks of the period. Both sides used poison gas with limited results. Both sides also used aircraft but these were seldom used in support of ground operations. In WWII Germany perfected mechanized warfare to the point that it was able to overrun Poland, the Low Countries, and France relatively quickly. Aircraft supported ground operations. Tanks were faster and also supported infantry. The main challenge of WWII for the Germans was to keep the armies supplied with food and petroleum. This was one of the key failures for the Germans and a reason why they lost WWII.
Still yet another difference was the casualty totals for the wars. While both sides suffered immensely in WWI, the casualty totals are much higher for WWII. This is due to the global scope of the war—Japan's active work for the Axis powers easily added millions of Asians to the casualty lists who would not have been likely thirty years previously. Another reason casualties were so high was the total nature of WWII. Entire cities were leveled as civilians were viewed as combatants due to their work in war industries and food production. Dresden, Tokyo, and London all suffered major losses during the war. Perhaps the most iconic loss of the war came from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII.
While there are others, the final difference I would like to point out would be how the wars ended. WWI ended with a German armistice. Germany was actually invaded and Berlin taken at the end of WWII. Japan and Italy also had to sign treaties of unconditional surrender in this war. The end of WWI saw the end of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. These two empires had existed for hundreds of years. The Russian Empire also collapsed during the war. WWII did not see the collapse of any empires, though the Japanese governmental system was restructured in order to make it more democratic. The end of WWI saw the birth of the League of Nations, but it failed due to lack of enforcement and lack of American involvement. The end of WWII saw the birth of the United Nations. It continues to be an organization for peace today.

World War 1 lasted for approximately four years, starting around July 1914 and ending in November 1918. World War 2 lasted for approximately six years, starting around 1939 and ending in 1945.
World War 1 was an armed conflict between the Allies (Russia, France, and the United Kingdom) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire). World War 2 saw changes as the Central Powers were renamed the "Axis powers" (Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy). The Allies included all countries supporting the United Nations, which included the United States and China among others.
World War 1 featured the introduction and overreliance on trench warfare. World War 2 saw the development of tanks that could cross trenches, diminishing the strategic and tactical impacts of trench warfare.
World War 1 was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo. On the other hand, World War 2 was sparked by the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany.
https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I

https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II

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

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

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

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

What is the significance of the letter in chapter 13?

The letter in chapter 13 is there to explain why Coleridge's description of the primary and secondary imagination in this chapter is so fragmentary and incomplete, or, as the letter puts it:

You have been obliged to omit so many links, from the necessity of compression, that what remains, looks (if I may recur to my former illustration) like the fragments of the winding steps of an old ruined tower.

The letter urges Coleridge not to include his full explanation in this volume. First, because it would run to about 100 pages, which would greatly increase the cost of the book to the reader. Secondly, because Coleridge's theory, the letter says, is so difficult to follow that it would lose most readers. Lastly, because it is "so abstruse a subject so abstrusely treated" that an ordinary reader—like the letter writer—would likely feel imposed-upon or annoyed.
Therefore, in this chapter, Coleridge offers only a cursory explanation of the two types of imagination. In short, he says, the primary imagination is the ordinary, everyday imagination of the average person that is "the living power and prime agent of all human perception." In other words, it simply repeats what it sees in nature. For example, if the primary imagination perceives a field of golden grain, this field of golden grain is all that it sees.
The secondary imagination, on the other hand, is what Coleridge considers to be rarer and more powerful: the imagination of the artistic genius (such as the imagination of men like Coleridge). This imagination "dissolves, diffuses, [and] dissipates [what it observes], in order to recreate." Thus, it is more creative than the primary imagination.
The best way to understand these two kinds of imaginations is to read Coleridge's Kubla Khan. The placid first stanza is the work of the primary imagination, while the second two stanzas—which are more powerful, dreamlike, and "demonic"—represent the secondary imagination.

The letter in Chapter 13 of the Biographia Literaria is significant, because it is here that Coleridge sets out his famous distinction between primary and secondary imagination. In very simple terms, the primary imagination makes sense of the world around us. If we look at the world, we can see some evidence of order and regularity. It is only because of the primary imagination that this is possible. Our senses provide us with fragments of the world, bits and pieces, but it takes the primary imagination to put them together to make a coherent whole. The primary imagination also creates symbols, which are particularly important in expressing the truths of religion, for example. This isn't something we consciously do; it's entirely spontaneous, a reflex or instinct of our minds.
The secondary imagination goes beyond the primary imagination, beyond mere perception. It gives us a much deeper understanding of reality, one that allows the artist to create new worlds. As we see here, the primary imagination is entirely unconscious; the secondary imagination, on the other hand, is a product of the conscious will; it's something deliberate, not spontaneous. It is the poetic imagination, and as such, is limited to only a relatively small number of people (Coleridge being one of them).
The secondary imagination is essential to the creation of art in that it joins the world of nature to the self-conscious mind. Those people—the vast majority of humankind—who remain at the level of the primary imagination, are incapable of genuinely creative acts. They can make sense of the world around them, but they can't do anything more than that.
By a conscious effort of will, the secondary imagination takes what is given to it by the subconscious and by sense perception and creates completely new imaginative worlds, the kind we see in poems or paintings, for example. In this way it establishes a bridge between the worlds of spirit and matter; it attempts to unify all the various elements of what makes us human—perception, intellect, feelings, passions and memories. This is what a work of art should do; it should reflect the whole of the artist's self.

When does David enjoy his lessons?

It's fair to say that the schooling which David receives is something of a mixed bag. At Salem House, he's placed under the authority of its unspeakable headmaster, Mr. Creakle, who gains an almost sadistic pleasure in administering harsh physical punishment to the boys. Although David makes friends with James Steerforth—even though he'll come to regret it—and the much nicer Tommy Traddles, his experiences at Salem House are not very happy on the whole.
Things couldn't be more different at Dr. Strong's school in Canterbury, where David's kind aunt Betsey Trotwood sends him after his escape from the hell-hole of the bottling plant. As both a teacher and a human being, Dr. Strong is a world removed from the vicious Mr. Creakle. He's an unfailingly kind, decent, humane individual whose admirable personality helps to create an educational environment in which David is soon able to thrive.

How did Grover almost get pulled into the pit of Tartarus?

Just a heads up, this answer has spoilers. To stay spoiler-free, skip the paragraph in the middle.
In Percy Jackson and The Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Percy is given a pair of magic winged shoes by Luke Castellan. The shoes were given to Luke by his father, the god Hermes.
As it turns out, long before he ever met Percy, Luke was convinced to join forces with Kronos, the lord of the Titans. Luke essentially became a pawn of Kronos. He gives Percy the winged shoes, knowing that they have been cursed to drag him down to Tartarus, the deepest and darkest part of the underworld where Kronos is imprisoned. This is all part of Kronos's plan to start a war among the gods; Percy is going on a mission to retrieve the Master Bolt, and if both Percy and the Master Bolt are dragged down to Tartarus, Kronos could use the weapon to break free.
However, Percy does not end up wearing the winged shoes. Grover does instead, because Percy is disliked by Zeus, and needs to stay out of his skies. In the Underworld the cursed shoes begin flying on their own, and almost drag Grover to Tartarus, but he is able to escape them.

What is the present day name for the island chain where Christopher Columbus landed?

Though it is contested, Columbus supposedly first landed in the New World at Guanahani, which is an island within what we now call the Bahamas. This occurred during Columbus's first voyage on October 12, 1492, the day that is now commemorated as Columbus Day or, in protest of Columbus's subsequent actions toward the native Taino people, as Indigenous Peoples Day.
Other historians claim that he actually landed on San Salvador Island, or what is now known as Watlings Island, also in the Bahamas. Though the exact island of first landing is disputed, all agree that he first arrived in the Bahamas.
Of course, at the time, Columbus did not know where he was. After sailing from the Bahamas, he landed next in Cuba, which he mistook for Cipango, or Cipangu -- what we now call Japan. He then moved on to Hispaniola, or present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic. On second thought, he considered that this island might in fact be Japan, or an island similar to the biblical kingdom of Sheba.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Christopher-Columbus/The-first-voyage

College Algebra, Chapter 9, 9.6, Section 9.6, Problem 32

Determine the first three terms in the expansion $\displaystyle \left( x + \frac{1}{x} \right)^{40}$
Recall that the Binomial Theorem is defined as
Substituting $a = x$ and $\displaystyle b = \frac{1}{x}$ gives the first three terms are

$
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
(x)^{40},
\quad
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
1
\end{array}
\right)
(x)^{39} \left( \frac{1}{x} \right),
\quad
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
1
\end{array}
\right)
(x)^{38} \left( \frac{1}{x} \right)^2
$

From the 40th row of the Pascal's Triangle, we obtain that

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
&= \frac{40!}{0!(40-0)!} = 1\\
\\
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
1
\end{array}
\right)
&= \frac{40!}{1!(40-1)!} = 40\\
\\
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
40\\
2
\end{array}
\right)
&= \frac{40!}{2!(40-2)!} = 780
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Thus, the first three terms are

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&= (1)(x)^{40}, \quad (40)(x)^{39} \left(\frac{1}{x}\right), \quad (780)(x)^{38} \left(\frac{1}{x}\right)^2\\
\\
&= x^{40}, \quad 40x^{38}, \quad, 780x^{36}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

In Shakespeare's Henry V, what is the bill that Ely and Canterbury are talking about, and why are they against it? In what way is Henry dependent on the church?

In Act 1, Scene 1, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely are discussing an old bill that has resurfaced in King Henry's court. Both the Archbishop and the Bishop are against this bill because it will reduce their land holdings and overall wealth.
Essentially, if the bill passes, all the land that "devout" men have bequeathed to the church will be confiscated and appropriated for the king's use. The confiscated wealth will allow the king to maintain fifteen earls, fifteen hundred knights, and six thousand two hundred squires.
Aside from this, the lepers, the aged, and the poor will be "well supplied" with their needs from this confiscated treasury. To add insult to injury, the Archbishop maintains that the bill provides for a yearly sum of a thousand pounds to be paid into the king's coffers. This will, in all effect, dilute the Church's wealth, power, and political influence; so, the Archbishop and the Bishop are against the bill.
The Bishop of Ely questions whether King Henry is amenable to what the House of Commons proposes, and the Archbishop confides in him that he's already proposed a way to thwart the king's purposes. Essentially, the Archbishop has offered Henry more money than the Church has ever given any of his predecessors. He means to tempt Henry with financial support from the Church to bolster Henry's claim to the throne of France. With Henry thus occupied, the king will have no reason to confiscate the Church's property.
When the two clerics later meet with King Henry, the Archbishop and Bishop reassure the monarch that there is no valid legal obstacle to thwart his claim to the French throne. They flatter him and tell him that he is "in the very May-morn of his youth, / Ripe for exploits and mighty enterprises." Upon hearing this, Henry is persuaded that he does indeed deserve the French throne and that he can mount a military campaign successfully.
We must remember that Henry is dependent upon the Church for its material and social support in his campaign to take back the throne of France.
Without the Church's coffers, Henry cannot mount a successful military campaign on two fronts. When he invades France, he will also need an army to push back against Scotland (which always attacks when England is at war with another power). Henry is not only dependent on the Church for material support, but he must also rely on the clergy to justify his French invasion to the people. Since the Church's coffers are filled by the populace, the people must be convinced that the king is acting in England's best interests. So, the Church and the king have a precarious relationship that's predicated on the ability of both to leverage wealth and power to protect their political interests.

What is the imagery in "Legal Alien" by Pat Mora?

Pat Mora's "Legal Alien" documents the difficulties faced by people who, like the poet herself, are "bilateral" or two-sided; they are "Mexican to Americans, American to Mexicans." The speaker in the poem describes the identity crisis as being "American but hyphenated"—the imagery here brings to legal definitions, indicating that the speaker is defined by her legal status, rather than by who she is as a rounded human.
The "bilateral" imagery reinforces this idea. "Bilateral" means two-sided, but it also has connotations of treaties and alliances, reinforcing the suggestion that the speaker's legal status is a divisive one which leaves her in a third space as "the other." The speaker is perceived as "exotic" and "inferior"; as a woman and as a Mexican American, she is objectified and viewed as a curiosity. She does not feel as if she fits anywhere.
Perhaps the most vivid imagery in the poem is that which depicts the speaker as "a handy token/sliding back and forth/between the fringes of two worlds." The speaker presents herself here as an object, able to move back and forth between two cultures but never able to rest comfortably in either; accordingly, she is deprived a share of her own agency. It is not up to the speaker to decide who she is or how she identifies: rather, she is "judged bilaterally"—both "sides" are prejudiced against her, wielding her as a token when it suits them and never letting her move beyond the "fringes" of their worlds into the center. The language of this poem is conducted entirely in fringes, edges, sides, and other extraneous spaces, highlighting the difficulty of the speaker's experience of never being allowed fully into any culture.  

Would a theme in To Kill A Mockingbird be there's goodness in everyone?

You're close to the mark here, but a little clarification is necessary. I think it would be more accurate to say that, in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, everyone is capable of goodness (and, along the same lines, of achieving dignity). That said, being capable of goodness is not quite the same as being good.
Let's first take a look at how everyone is capable of goodness. As an example, consider Mrs. Dubose, the cantankerous and mean-spirited neighbor down the street. At first, we see Mrs. Dubose as nothing more than a vile old woman. As we get to know her, we learn she's a morphine addict struggling to kick her habit. As such, an apparently mean person can be seen as brave and, in a certain way, actually good. In this way, Lee seems to be saying that all people, even the meanest, most isolated people, are capable of performing good actions. As such, Lee is encouraging us to "walk around in other people's shoes" in order to see things from diverse perspectives and try to find the goodness everyone is capable of.
There is, however, one major exception to this rule: Bob Ewell. While most characters in the novel have complex layers, Bob Ewell is essentially evil. An abusive, alcoholic father, Ewell does not care for anyone or anything except himself, and he is primarily responsible for sending Tom Robinson to an unjust trial. He has no good qualities to speak of, and seems to be entirely content existing within a small world of ignorance and cruelty. As such, it would appear that, while everyone is capable of goodness in Lee's world, some people, such as Bob Ewell, are too blinded by ignorance and hate to make use of this capability.
Now, there is an important fact we must take into account when it comes to Bob Ewell: there is a rigid class hierarchy in Maycomb, and Bob Ewell is on the wrong end of it. Indeed, his family seems to have a history of extreme, abject poverty. As such, one could argue Bob Ewell is a product of miserable poverty made worse by an unequal society that has a history of preferring "good" families (i.e., families with money) to those who have a history of poverty. That's not to say Ewell should not be held accountable for his evil actions. Rather, it's just important to note that even this detestable character is a little more complex than he first seems.
Be that as it may, Lee seems to be saying everyone is capable of goodness, but some are too blinded by ignorance and prejudice to fulfill this capability.

In the short story "The Birthmark," what does the text reveal about America then and now?

In "The Birthmark," the scientist, Aylmer, fixates on his wife's one imperfection--a hand-shaped birthmark that mars her otherwise beautiful face. When Georgiana, the wife, turns pale, the mark looks like " a crimson stain upon the snow." As she is so beautiful and so close to physical perfection, this one mark starts to trouble Aylmer. While he could choose to be happy with his loving wife, he instead chooses to focus on her one small blemish. He provides her with a draught that he says will remove the blemish; however, his wife dies as a result of having taken it. 
America in Hawthorne's time was a place in which people hoped science and medicine could cure people of every imperfection. Today's America is not that different, as people turn to miracle diets (that aren't really miracles), pills, and procedures such as plastic surgery to achieve perfection. Like the characters Hawthorne presents, people today are also bent on achieving perfection and aren't happy with minor flaws that make them human. 

Explain how far the title of the play The Tempest is appropriate.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the word "tempest" has multiple meanings, but one of the older (and currently obsolete) definitions is "calamity, misfortune, trouble" (OED, "tempest, n."). A deeper explanation of the play's title can be found through the use of carefully dissected definitions.
My answer, then, will be two-fold: the first part will be how students can use proper dictionary definitions of words to create analysis for student writing, and the second part will be an example of how the word "tempest" could fit into my use of the OED's definition.
Students seeking an answer to the question of how Shakespeare's The Tempest is appropriately titled should start with a dictionary definition of the word tempest. Personally, I use the Oxford English Dictionary, and I try to pinpoint when and where the definitions were used and which definitions are now obsolete or rarely used. In the case of the definition I used above, the two citations the OED offers are from the 1300s and the 1400s, meaning that Shakespeare most likely was aware of this definition of the word tempest when he was writing this play.
Of course, the definition a student chooses does not exclusively have to be the obsolete or rarely used version of the word. In fact, a critical analysis can still be created with the more familiar definition of the word tempest. The OED provides that definition, which is a "violent storm of wind, usually accompanied by a downfall of rain . . . or by thunder" (OED, "tempest, n.").
These definitions can form the basis for a carefully wrought piece of analysis by a student. Let's start with the second definition I provided from the OED, revolving around an actual physical rainstorm. The keywords of the definition are violent and downfall of rain and thunder. This is where key analysis of this play can happen for students:
How do the characters reflect a tempest with their actions (violent actions, namely)?
How do the characters reflect a tempest with their words (words that clap like thunder, words that are violent)?
How do the elements of a tempest reflect the characters?
For the first OED definition I provided, analysis could move in a different direction, such as:
What kinds of calamities, misfortunes, or troubles do the characters suffer through?
What kinds of calamities or troubles do the characters subject each other to?
All of the above questions are fantastic questions to begin a student analysis of one of Shakespeare's most brilliant plays. Remember, students: most analysis is simply answering questions that start with how or what happened when.

The Tempest is an ideal title for this play, one of Shakespeare's greatest and last. Not only is an actual tempest portrayed in the opening scene—conjured up by Prospero and serving to capture his foes (and a couple of friends) on the island—but all the characters in the play are experiencing their own personal "tempests" as well.
Miranda and Ferdinand are feeling the tempestuous effects of first love. Caliban is full of tempestuous rage at his slavery and lot in life under Prospero's mastery. Ariel longs for the tempest of the air of freedom, long promised by Prospero but not yet delivered. Sebastian and Alonso toss from the tempest of their conspiracies and guilt. And most importantly, Prospero, at the end of his sorcery and even his life, longs for life's tempest to subside. His soliloquy at the end of the play is considered by most scholars to be Shakespeare's own farewell to the constant tempest of his own genius.

What is the effect on everyone when he wears his black veil

When the minister, Parson Hooper, appears at the meeting house wearing a black veil over his face, his parishioners experience a number of effects. Firstly, Goodman Gray wonders if it really is Parson Hooper because he cannot see the minister's face.
Secondly, the parishioners, who are waiting on the steps, are described as "being wonder-stuck." They are so dumbfounded by his veil that many of them do not even greet the parson when he speaks to them.
Thirdly, for some members of the congregation, the black veil puts them ill at ease. One woman, described as having "delicate nerves," leaves the meeting house. Others are described as being "pale-faced," meaning that the veil makes them feel nervous and afraid. The village physician, for example, suggests that the parson looks "ghost-like" as a result of wearing the veil.
The veil provokes such a strong response that much of the congregation avoids the parson. Nobody wants the honor of walking beside him, for instance, and nobody wants to converse with him.
Over time, however, the congregation changes its opinion of the veil, believing that it helps the parson to better understand their sins:

Its gloom, indeed, enabled him to sympathize with all dark affections.

The effect of the black veil, therefore, changes throughout the story, beginning with confusion and dread and later becoming a welcome sight for dying sinners.

why did calpurnia hit scout?

Calpurnia smacks Scout to emphasize an important point.
In the story, Calpurnia is a mother figure to both Scout and Jem. The text tells us that Calpurnia has been with the Finch family since Jem was born. Although Scout does not remember much of her mother, Jem does. We learn that Scout does not remember her mother, because she was only two years old when the latter died of a heart attack.
As one of the authority figures in the children's lives, Calpurnia works hard to instill good values in Scout and Jem. From what we can see of the interactions between Calpurnia and the children, the housekeeper takes her responsibilities seriously. However, Calpurnia also has a soft spot for her young charges. When Jem turns twelve and becomes difficult to live with, Calpurnia becomes an important source of comfort for Scout. She welcomes Scout into the kitchen and spends time with her. Calpurnia is an important presence in Scout's life.
When Calpurnia smacks Scout for her unkind remarks to Walter, she does it to emphasize an important point. Essentially, Calpurnia wants Scout to be kind to her guests and, most importantly, to treat people who appear to be her social inferiors with compassion and understanding.

“He ain’t company, Cal, he’s just a Cunningham-” “Hush your mouth! Don’t matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house’s yo‘ comp’ny, and don’t you let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so high and mighty! Yo‘ folks might be better’n the Cunninghams but it don’t count for nothin’ the way you’re disgracin‘ ’em—if you can’t act fit to eat at the table you can just set here and eat in the kitchen!”

After this soliloquy, Calpurnia smacks Scout to emphasize her point. As for Scout, she spends the remainder of her meal in the kitchen.

Calpurnia smacks Scout as a punishment for making rude comments about Walter's eating habits at the dinner table.
In Chapter 3, Jem invites Walter Cunningham Jr. over to eat dinner with his family, and Walter proceeds to pour syrup all over his meal. Scout is disgusted at Walter's eating habits and rudely comments on the fact that he is pouring syrup all over his meat and vegetables. Scout embarrasses Walter by asking "what the sam hill" he is doing. Calpurnia then requests Scout's presence in the kitchen and proceeds to reprimand Scout for her rude remarks. Calpurnia chastises Scout for not treating Walter with respect and tells her to stop acting so "high and mighty!". Calpurnia also makes Scout finish her meal in the kitchen and smacks her while she is walking into the dining room to retrieve her plate. While Scout is eating alone in the kitchen, she contemplates on how she will get revenge on Calpurnia for punishing her.

List at least three adjectives that describe the personality of Phileas Fogg

Resourceful: Phileas Fogg doesn't let unexpected obstacles deter him. For example, when the railroad tracks all of a sudden end in India before he gets to his destination, Fogg buys an elephant and hires a guide to take him and his party the rest of the way. Likewise, he buys, pilots, and even burns part of the Henrietta for fuel to get back to London on time to win the bet.
Honorable: Seeing that Aouda, the Indian widow, has been drugged, and thus is not going willingly to the funeral pyre, Fogg risks himself to save her from death, because it is the right thing to do. When he takes her back to England and finds out she is in love with him, he again does the right thing by marrying her.
Surprising: Fogg's new valet Passepartout expects his new employer to be as regular and unexciting as he always has been, only to find the seemingly unchangeable and unassuming Fogg has placed a bet that he can circle the globe in eighty days. This kind of wild adventure is the last thing most people would have expected of Fogg.

Eccentric. Well, you'd certainly have to be to even think about embarking on such an intrepid journey. The thing about Phileas Fogg is that he isn't even interested in the very substantial money he'll receive if the wins the bet. For him, what matters most of all is the challenge of doing something strange and unusual that no one else would ever think of doing.
Brave. Bravery is a very important quality for an intrepid explorer, and Phileas Fogg has plenty to spare. During his epic journey he saves the Indian princess Aouda from being ritually burned to death after her husband passes away. Fogg and Passepartout risk their lives to save the princess, as their actions are considered sacrilegious by the local population.
Tireless. It doesn't matter how hard things get, Phileas Fogg never gives up. The odds are stacked against him from the outset, but he keeps on going, using whatever means necessary, whatever modes of transport, to help him achieve his goal.

Examine Atticus’s speech about the Radleys’s right to privacy. What do his views make you think of him? Do you agree with him?

Atticus Finch is an honorable man who believes in the inalienable rights of the individual. Boo Radley is no exception to his beliefs, and Atticus wants his children to recognize the Radley family's rights.
After having constructed "Chapter XXV of Book II of One Man's Family," the children engage in Dill's plan to send a note to Boo. They do not notice Atticus as comes up the street. "What are you all playing?" he inquires; Jem replies, "Nothing." But Atticus has noticed the scissors that Jem holds and asks him if he is cutting the newspaper. Jem replies with only monosyllables. Atticus tells him that the scissors better not have anything to do with the Radleys.
Some days later, Jem and Dill plan on leaving a message for Boo. It is attached to a fishing pole, and Jem hopes to drop it off at a window. But, it will not stay on the window's ledge no matter how many attempts Jem makes. Then, he hears Dill ringing the warning bell for Jem. But it is too late because Atticus approaches Dill and orders him to stop ringing the bell. Taking the note from Jem, Atticus asks him why he, Scout, and Dill want Arthur to come outside. Dill says, "We thought he might enjoy us...," but Atticus interrupts as he looks at Jem, "I'm going to tell you something and tell you one time: stop tormenting that man. That goes for the other two of you." He explains that Mr. Radley has the right to do what he wants. He also has the right "to avoid the attention of inquisitive children," Atticus adds. To demonstrate his point, Atticus asks his children how they would like it if he just walked into their bedrooms without knocking. For they are doing much the same thing to Arthur Radley.
Atticus teaches his children that respect for their privacy must be extended to everyone. Atticus explains that what Mr. Arthur Radley does may seem odd, but it is reasonable to him. Besides, he adds, the civil way to communicate with another person is to knock on the front door. After telling the children to be respectful of the Radleys's privacy, Atticus instructs the children to stay away from the Radley house unless they are invited there.This advice of Atticus's demonstrates his respectful nature and his sense of justice.

William Appleman Williams argues that the US was the initiator of the Cold War. Discuss some of his arguments and their ramification both domestically and internationally. Discuss some of the proxy wars that took place during this period and how and why the Cold War finally ended.

William Appleman Williams was a prominent revisionist historian of American diplomacy.
His most famous work, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, challenged the previously accepted historiography of the Cold War, as Williams argued that the United States was the instigator. Williams contends that the United States’s desire to keep Europe a free market and open was not humanitarian or altruistic in nature but rather driven by the practical desire to maintain access to its goods and trade partnerships.
The United States also saw firsthand how lucrative war was. Following the end of World War II, economists knew that the American military-industrial complex would need to retool. In order to combat this and justify the research and building of new weapons, the Cold War needed to feel like a true war in the eyes and hearts of Americans, and the national media played into that narrative.
Also following World War II, the United States took a leading role in the formation of NATO in 1949. Six years later, the Warsaw Pact was cemented as a response. Americans at the time viewed these as inherently good versus inherently evil entities. Williams believed that neither entity was good or evil—they were simply both useful for building and maintaining the economies of both the East and the West.
In order to perpetuate the narrative of good versus evil and keep military spending high, the Cold War manifested in proxy battles—most notably the Vietnam War. The United States portrayed Stalin’s buffer zone in Eastern Europe as an aggressive act, which justified the implementation of the Containment policy. Following the absolute failure of the policy in Vietnam, thinkers like Williams began to question the genesis of the policy overall and view the United States as the instigator in the Cold War instead of the victim or savior.

William Appleman Williams was one of the early revisionist historians of Cold War historiography. In his work, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, Williams argues that it was the US who was the instigator of the Cold War. He argues correctly that the US was driven to keep Europe open not for humanitarian reasons; rather, the US needed European markets for its goods. This meant keeping the Soviet Union in a smaller role. Williams argues that the Soviet Union was severely weakened by World War II and that it needed to maintain Eastern European satellites as buffer states in order to protect it from the West. Williams also argued that the Soviet Union felt threatened by the formation of NATO in 1949 and that this led to the Soviet Union forming the Warsaw Pact. To Williams, the United States was the instigator of the Cold War, a war generated for economic reasons and as a justification to continue to grow the US's military-industrial complex.
Williams's work was written at a time when most contemporary historians viewed the Cold War as a war of good versus evil, with the US playing the role of the good guys. Williams looks at US containment strategies as ways to maintain markets rather than crusades for freedom. Williams would note that the US backed rightist dictators in Latin America in a similar fashion to Stalin's backing of leftists in Eastern Europe.
The U.S. and Soviet Union backed their own pet groups throughout the developing world during the twentieth century. Both sides spent trillions of dollars on aid and weapons for groups in Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, and Afghanistan in addition to vast sums in their respective nuclear arsenals—enough weapons to destroy the world many times over. Williams and other revisionists would state that this military spending was part of the US's goal to continue to grow its economy in the name of fighting the Soviet boogeyman. The Cold War finally ended under the Reagan administration when Soviet spending could not keep up with US military spending. This led to the collapse of the Soviet Union; however, relations between the US and Russia are still tense.

William Appleman Williams (1921–1990) was a revisionist historian who boldly challenged traditional explanations for the Cold War. Prior to his emergence as a persuasive revisionist, fellow historians and the general public accepted the view that America had to act to restrain Soviet aggressiveness and expansionism after World War II. Williams argued that American economic interests were primarily responsible for the Cold War, though. His most important book was The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959).
It was the West, not the Soviet Union, that established the first alliance system in postwar Europe. America was the driving force behind the creation of the anti-Soviet North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was, in Williams' view, a response to NATO. Indeed, the Warsaw Pact was not founded until 1955.
Williams maintained that Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, had a right to a buffer zone in Eastern Europe. Germany invaded Russia twice—during both of the World Wars—and the results were devastating for Russia. The USSR was, in any case, too weakened from WWII to threaten Western Europe. The U.S., on the other hand, was not damaged during WWII, and it had a formidable nuclear arsenal.
Williams' revisionism became especially popular as the folly of America's war in Vietnam became apparent. If Containment had been the correct postwar strategy, how did it fail so badly in Vietnam?

In short, Williams argued that American diplomacy had long been driven by the demands of capitalism, not of democracy. As this related to the Cold War, he claimed that the United States, fearful that Soviet influence would crowd American investment out of European markets, took a hard line against Joseph Stalin. This position led to the outbreak of a rivalry in Europe that eventually spread throughout the world, and it was one that resulted more from America's aggressive stance than a Stalinist drive for global domination.
As for the implications for American foreign policy it should be remembered that Williams published his most famous work The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in 1959 at the height of the Cold War. The book's thesis strongly suggests that the United States embraced anti-colonial revolutions around the world, including those with leftist leanings. This, of course, was very different from what was going on in French Indochina (Vietnam), where the Americans took exactly the opposite course. It also strongly suggests a moral equivalency—or worse—between Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe and American policy in Latin America. Williams urged readers to see that economic motives rather than freedom were at the heart of American foreign policy, and he sought to change this power dynamic.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZUS7t8Af-i4C&printsec=frontcover

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1997-09-01/tragedy-american-diplomacy-enlarged-edition

What is Shakespeare's art of characterization?

Shakespeare’s art of characterization—his power of creating personality through diction, revealing psychology through the words his characters speak and think—is the essence of his genius, and the reason for his enduring importance. As if often observed, the narratives of Shakespeare’s plays are almost all adapted from prior sources. His great originality consists in the richly textured and verbally exuberant characters, major and minor, with which he populates those familiar stories.
The most important early step in developing an appreciation for Shakespeare is acquiring sufficient confidence in understanding his language and its meanings that one is able to distinguish between the diverse voices of his characters. For many  students, unfamiliar with Elizabethan/Jacobean vocabulary and the rhythms of iambic pentameter speech, all the characters might sound as if they speak in an identically “old-fashioned” or “elevated” idiom. But once reading or hearing Shakespeare begins to feel more natural, one finds that Claudius sounds vastly different from Gertrude, Horatio from Polonius, Ophelia from the gravedigger—and all of them are light-years removed from Hamlet himself, who is probably the most searching, penetrating, and sophisticated intellect that Shakespeare ever created.
Entire libraries have been written about Shakespeare’s art of characterization, so no comprehensive answer to your question is possible. But I’ll direct you to two critical viewpoints that may be suggestive and helpful in pondering the nature of this art.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel made one of my favorite remarks about Shakespeare when he observed that his great characters are “free artists of themselves.” That is to say that Shakespeare’s most memorable men and women—beginning with characters like Berowne in Love’s Labour’s Lost and the titular tyrant of Richard III, and climaxing with amazingly vital figures like Hamlet, Macbeth, Falstaff (Henry IV), and Iago (Othello)—are improvisational poets, clowns, raconteurs, and philosophers of amazing brilliance, performing in the dramas of their own lives. They strive with the full force of their souls to author, analyze, revise, and direct this drama before our very eyes, to alter it, control it, or simulate and reproduce it (like Hamlet with his Mousetrap). The entire plot of Othello is essentially an elaborate deception, a play within a play devised and improvised by Iago, with Othello, Desdemona, and Cassio ensnared as his unwitting actors.
The second critical notion I want to reference for you is one from Harold Bloom, who quotes that wonderful line of Hegel’s in his book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Bloom locates Shakespeare’s ultimate originality of characterization in a phenomenon he calls “self-overhearing” and discusses throughout the book, the phenomenon by which a character (such as Hamlet) observes himself speaking, or thinking, and is changed or enlightened by this process of self-expression and self-definition.
Bloom’s idea is closely related to Hegel’s; Shakespeare’s characters are aware of themselves as dramatic personalities, players in a drama they don’t fully comprehend but which they are trying to revise, enacted on a stage as large as the whole history of the human race. The soliloquy is Shakespeare’s primary tool in portraying the art of self-overhearing—an art, Bloom argues (and I agree), that is not confined to Shakespeare but that every one of us practices, alone or in the presence of others, every day.
What makes Shakespeare’s characters so very different from us—even as they feel things we feel and help us to understand ourselves more deeply—is that the soliloquy allows them to express their inmost thoughts and conflicts through language, whereas most of us, when we are alone, think through difficult matters silently, in a verbally vague and fragmentary way. This, too, marks them as “artists.” Diction, word choice, and poetic language are the wellspring from which Shakespearean character arises.
Listening to these characters think about and try to define their own lives and their own natures, you discover zestful and visionary creative minds in action. Shakespeare was not just a great artist, but a creator of great artists, with desires, values, ambitions, and imaginative sensibilities all their own.

In the Iliad, what qualities of Hector and Andromache are revealed?

The Iliad reveals the loyalty and devotion which are integral parts of Hector's and Andromache's characterization.
Hector and Andromache are two of the most loyal characters in the Iliad. They display an unwavering commitment to one another.  They sacrifice for elements larger than themselves.  Both characters uphold their duty at great cost.
Hector is devoted to Troy.  He does not hesitate in responding to Troy's call. Even though he disagrees with Paris's actions, he does not forsake his obligation to the city and its soldiers.  Loyalty is a significant part of Hector's characterization.  It can be seen when he rebukes his brother as being "worthless" for not acknowledging his responsibilities.  Hector criticizes Paris for not being loyal, citing how "men are being destroyed, fighting right by the city" because of Paris's selfishness.  Hector's loyalty to Troy can be seen in the way he rebukes Paris for lacking devotion to something outside of his own pursuits.  
Hector's tragedy reveals his noble qualities.  He is a tragic figure because he is placed in an impossible situation.  As loyal as he is to Troy, he is equally devoted to his wife, Andromache.  When she pleads with him to stay, he is emotionally forlorn.  On one hand, he is loyal to her.  He never strays from her.  His only wish is to return from battle so that he can be with her and their son.   Yet, Hector knows that remaining with her when he is called upon will mean "disgrace" and being "dreadfully shamed" for abandoning his responsibilities.  He leaves his wife because of his loyalty to Troy.  However, it is clear from Homer's narration that Hector is emotionally forlorn in doing so: "He placed his son in the hands of his dear wife. She embraced the child on her sweet breast, smiling through her tears. Observing her, Hector felt compassion."  The Iliad reveals Hector's loyalty to both his city and his wife.
Hector and Andromache match one another in their traits of loyalty and devotion.  Homer reveals Andromache to be selflessly devoted to her husband.  When she hears that Hector will go off to war, her loyalty towards him subsumes her thoughts.  She communicates her fidelity towards him when she says that upon his death in battle, she "would be better to be buried in the ground." Andromache cannot see life outside of being with Hector. Her loyalty is revealed when she communicates how Hector is everything to her: "... In have no father, no dear mother... So, Hector, you are now my father, noble mother, brother, and my protecting husband." Andromache's devotion to her husband is evident in the way she sees him as the sum of her being.  She is emotionally bound to him as she cannot envision a life without him.
The Iliad reveals Hector's and Andromache's "philos," which is Greek for "love."  The Greeks saw "Philos" as a deep and binding loyalty towards something outside of oneself.  In their sacrifice for something larger than themselves,  Hector's and Andromache's philos shows devotion and loyalty.

What are the prosodic features of Thomas Hoods' "Bridge of Sighs"?

Thomas Hoods' "Bridge of Sighs" actually refers to the Waterloo Bridge in London rather than the better-known one in Venice. The poem addresses the problem of suicide or attempted suicide by drowning of poor women. It specifically addresses the attempt of seamstress Mary Furley to kill herself and her children after she had been robbed.
The poem consists of eighteen stanzas, varying in length from four to nine lines. There is no regular pattern of stanza length, but instead the length of each stanza seems chosen to suit its specific theme rather than for metrical reasons. 
The most interesting aspect of the poem, from a prosodic point of view, is its use of falling rhythms. The lines all contain two stresses and the feet within the lines are either dactyls or trochees. The following lines (and in fact all the lines in the stanza) consist of two dactyls each:

Touch her not scornfully;
Think of her mournfully

Other lines consist of a dactyl followed by a trochee, such as:

Look at her garments
Clinging like cerements;

Because of the use of falling rhythm, the poem uses exclusively feminine rhymes. The fourth stanza of the poem (beginning with "Touch her not scornfully") rhymes AABCCB, but rhyme patterns vary from stanza to stanza.
http://www.literarylondon.org/london-journal/march2004/nicoletti.html

In Patrick Ness's A Monster Calls, how does Conor's relationship with the monster change throughout the course of the novel?

At first, Conor thinks that the monster's nothing more than a dream. There's certainly something dream-like about how the monster first appears to Conor: by the moonlight near the old church and graveyard. Under the circumstances, Conor can be forgiven for thinking that the strange apparition outside is all just a dream. But once he realizes that the monster's real and means him no harm, Conor gradually starts to develop a close relationship with him.
The monster is incredibly wise, and through the stories he tells Conor, imparts his wisdom on matters of life and death. In turn, this allows Conor to gain a greater degree of self-understanding, making him better able to deal with the various issues that cause problems in his life, such as his mother's terminal illness. The relationship between monster and boy becomes one of mentor and student, of a moral guide leading his young charge to face up to the truth of his situation, thus liberating him.

Initially, Conor views the Monster as a threat. It appears to want to eat him and it makes threats about what will happen should Conor not share a "fourth" tale with him, which Conor interprets as a threat on his life. Conor also derides the Monster's interest in telling stories, since he views stories as a childish pastime.
However, as the novel progresses, Conor comes to view the Monster's visits as a comfort. The stories entertain him, and he learns about the nature of life and the human condition from them. When he believes the Monster will not appear to him again, he is afraid because he genuinely enjoys the visits.
The Monster ultimately becomes Conor's greatest comfort. It confesses at the end that it came to "heal" Peter and prepare him for the loss of his mother. The threats the Monster made about Conor having to share his tale were not about literally eating Conor, but about the guilt he felt eating him up emotionally.

When Conor first meets the monster, he believes the monster is his nemesis; however, over the course of the novel, the monster goes from being threatening to becoming a comfort to Conor as Conor faces his mother's impending death from cancer. When Conor first meets the monster, the monster is menacing: "the monster roared even louder and smashed an arm through Conor's window, shattering glass and wood and brick" (page 8). When Conor says he is not afraid of the monster, the monster replies, "You will be...Before the end" (page 9). Then, Conor remembers the monster trying to eat him alive before he wakes up from his nightmare. 
In the middle part of the book, the monster says that it wants to talk with Conor. When Conor asks the monster what it wants from him, the monster replies, mysteriously, "It's not what I want from you, Conor O'Malley...It is what you want from me" (page 34). Conor still feels strangely calm around the monster, even though he is having a nightmare. The monster tells Conor that it will tell him three stories and that Conor will tell him the fourth. The monster says, "You know that your truth, the one that you hide, is the truth that you are most afraid of, Conor O'Malley" (page 38). The truth that Conor hides is that his mother is sick with cancer and that Conor has no one around him to comfort him, as his relationships with his father and grandmother are not good.
In the end, after Conor tells his story, the monster comforts him. Even though Conor wants the monster to heal his mother, the monster says, "I did not come to heal her... I came to heal you" (page 193). By forcing him to listen to its stories and tell his own, the monster has healed Conor and prepared him for his mother's death.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.3, Section 3.3, Problem 75

Determine the equations of both lines that are tangent to the curve $y = 1+x^3$ and are parallel to the line $12x -y = 1$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{Given:}&&& \text{Curve}\quad y = 1+x^3\\
\phantom{x}&&& \text{Line} \quad 12- y = 1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The slope$(m)$ of the curve is equal to the slope$(m)$ of the line because there are parallel.
Using the formula $mx+b$, we take the equation of the line $12x-y=1$ or $y = 12x-1$ the slope is 12.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
y &= 1 + x^3\\
\\
y'&= \frac{d}{dx} (1) + \frac{d}{dx}(x^3)
&& \text{Derive each terms}\\
\\
y'&= 0 + 3x^2
&& \text{Simplify the equation}\\
\\
y'&= 3x^2\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Let $y' =$ slope$(m)$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
m &= 12\\
\\
m &= 3x^2
&& \text{Substitute the value of slope}(m)\\
\\
\frac{12}{3} &= \frac{3x^2}{3}
&& \text{Divide both sides by 3}\\
\\
x^2 &= 4
&& \text{Take the square root of both sides}\\
\\
\sqrt{x^2} &= \pm \sqrt{4}
&& \text{Simplify the equation}\\
\\
x &= \pm 2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Substitute the values of $x$ to the equation of the curve to solve for $y$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
y &= 1 + x^3
&&& \phantom{x} && y &= 1 + x^3\\
\\
y &= 1 + (2)^3
&&& \Longleftarrow\text{(Simplify the equation)} \Longrightarrow && y &= 1 + (-2)^3\\
\\
y &= 9
&&& \phantom{x} && y &= -7\\
\\

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Using point slope form
@ $x = 2$ $y = 9 $ $m = 12 $


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
y - y_1 &= m(x-x_1)
&& \text{Substitute the value of } x, y \text{ and slope}(m)\\
\\
y - 9 &= 12(x-2)
&& \text{Distribute 12 in the equation}\\
\\
y - 9 &= 12x - 24
&& \text{Add 9 to each sides}\\
\\
y &= 12x - 24 + 9
&& \text{Combine like terms}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The first equation of the tangent line is $y = 12x - 15$

@ $x = -2$ $y = -7$ $m = 12$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
y - y_1 &= m(x-x_1)
&& \text{Substitute the value of }x,y\text{ and slope}(m)\\
\\
y+7 &= 12(x+2)
&& \text{Distribute 12 in the equation}\\
\\
y+7 &= 12x+24
&& \text{Add -7 to each sides}\\
\\
y &= 12x+24-7
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The second equation of the tangent line is $y = 12x + 17$

On page 4 of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" reread the paragraph that starts with, “Men of passive tempers.” At the beginning of this paragraph, Paine mildly faults the supporters of reconciliation because they are “still hoping for the best.” However, by the end of the paragraph, his tone toward such people has drastically changed. Give an example of this change (text evidence), and explain how Paine accomplished such a dramatic shift in tone (what is his strategy?).

In this paragraph, Paine begins by claiming that these "men of passive tempers" hope for reconciliation with Great Britain out of a misguided faith in mankind and the historic ties between the Americans and the mother country. However, Paine claims that the relationship is past saving (and was never worth saving in the first place). Can Americans, he asks, reconcile with those who "carried fire and sword into your land?" He describes the death and suffering that Americans suffered during the war and asks those who have lost family or seen their property taken or destroyed if they can still then be friends with the British. Having framed his argument in this way, he challenges the man who still seeks peace and reconciliation by saying that he is "unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover" and that he has "the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant." These were serious accusations—calling someone a coward in the eighteenth century was an invitation to a duel—and Paine does not issue these epithets lightly. He is trying to underscore the outrages that he accuses the British of perpetuating to show that the relationship between the American colonies and the British is fractured beyond repair.

In which areas do you think people's rights and liberties are at risk of government intrusion? What solutions would you impose?

There is a certain level of privacy that is bordering on being infringed upon with government intervention. Access to the internet, phone lines, and travel is monitored so closely that the government can know anyone's whereabouts and activities at almost any time day or night. This level of oversight is in some ways necessary to prevent threats like terrorism and violence, but it infringes on the rights of ordinary people everyday.
Another thing that is jeopardized is communication. Authoritarian regimes suppress means of communication when they feel the need to quell rebellions or temper resistant sentiment. Since most communication is currently monitored, it is also at risk of being easily and swiftly restricted—a right to which people should be entitled.
The humorous joke travels around the internet about everyone having an FBI agent watching through laptop cameras, and while people aren't monitoring our actions that way around the clock, the access is still available. I believe personal privacy should be respected, and there needs to be at the very least education and information about what is being monitored so that individuals know how to protect sensitive data and keep their lives private if they so choose.
There is no perfect system; we sacrifice certain rights in exchange for safety, but something also must be done to sustain an individual's right to privacy.

In my opinion, communication online is one freedom that is threatened in the United States today. While government has a need to keep people safe, it also does not need to monitor all of social media based on the usage of a few key words or phrases that it believes are tied to violence or crime. There are already many government officials such as law enforcement in place in order to stop many crimes before they take place. While private citizens can be on the lookout for things they might think are harmful, I believe that it should not be the government's place to police Twitter and Facebook for things that may indicate impending crime. Law enforcement should use social media as evidence only if they have a warrant from a court.
Another freedom is the news media. Internet companies can slow down access to non-mainstream news sites or controversial pundits may be discriminated against in terms of Internet searches. While "fake news" is a concern, who is to say what is "fake"? I personally believe that the news media should be allowed to report as it wishes and the people themselves should demand credible sources for stories. Thus, government should not be involved in saying which news is "fake" and which is "real." The people should appreciate their freedom of the press enough to care about sources—government should not have to police the news as there is too much room for corruption.

There are various areas where people’s rights and liberties are at risk of government intrusion. One of those areas is when people travel by airplane. Currently, in the United States, people need to give a great deal of personal information when planning to travel. Our bags are searched, our luggage is x-rayed, and the type of ticket and time that it was bought are closely analyzed. Many years ago, I was flying to get engaged to a woman who now is my wife. I carried the engagement ring with me through security. I was stopped and had to explain why I had the ring with me. While I viewed it as a minor inconvenience, I wasn’t too thrilled that I needed to explain to a TSA agent, a complete stranger, in public, that I was getting engaged. There should be a way to be able to declare what a person is carrying in a private manner so other passengers aren’t able to hear why somebody is bringing something onto an airplane. The same is true if somebody has a metallic implant in them. They should be able to go through security in a manner that doesn’t allow the public to hear about one’s medical conditions. Some expanded version of pre-TSA may be helpful in these situations.
Another area where people’s rights may be at risk is with communication by the Internet, by phone, or by text. It is very easy for government officials to monitor this kind of communication. There should be strict rules that need to be followed, and it should be fairly difficult for the government to get permission to monitor people’s communications and Internet activity. One reform would be to modify the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If email were to be treated like regular postal mail, it would be more difficult for the police or for the government to get access to private, personal communications.
It is also very easy to track the movement of people. There are cameras everywhere people travel. Cameras on highways can help track a vehicle. When people use electronic devices to pay their tolls, they can be tracked. Cellphones report a person’s location, and some cameras on streets and within businesses, including government buildings, have facial recognition technology. All of these activities are done without a person’s consent and, in some cases, without a person’s knowledge. In some European countries, laws exist that protect against government surveillance and limit what kinds of data may be collected. There should also be limits on how long the information that has been gained can be stored and used.
It will be necessary for the court system to issue guidelines regarding these intrusions of our privacy. The courts need to be sure they safeguard the rights and the liberties that American citizens have based on the Constitution and the interpretation of the Constitution.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/americangovernment/chapter/interpreting-the-bill-of-rights/