What problems does Upton Sinclair associate with industrialization and what solutions does he appear to offer to these through The Jungle?

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, which was first serialized in a socialist newspaper, became an improbable best seller. Sinclair wrote this sentimental novel exposing the ruthless exploitation of workers in the United States in order to make a plea for socialism. Readers, however, were primarily shocked at the description of unsanitary conditions in the Chicago meatpacking plants. Sinclair's book did not bring socialism to this country, but it did influence legislation that allowed for government inspection of food supply and created the Food and Drug Administration. Sinclair famously said, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

Sinclair depicts an innocent, hardworking Lithuanian immigrant family that cannot get ahead because the system is stacked against them. They have no protections: no minimum wage, no sick leave, and no unemployment insurance. When they try to buy a house, they have no defense against an unfair contract that they do not understand, which inevitably leads to foreclosure. After the death of his wife, Ona, Jurgis stumbles onto socialism and finds meaning and purpose in it.

While sometimes exaggerated in its depiction of a family that suffers every horror brought on by industrialism, Sinclair did illustrate a world of raw capitalism. In this setting, workers have no rights because the logic of the factory renders them as widgets in a huge profit-making machine, rather than humans. The owners of the meatpacking plants and other factories, as well as the owners of farms hiring migrant workers, simply wanted to gain the most possible work from their employees for the least possible wages. Like Marx, Sinclair argued that industrialism destroyed the relationship between owner and worker and turned workers into dehumanized wage slaves. While the United States never became socialist, worker protections that we take for granted today were advocated by Sinclair in The Jungle. These benefits, such as fairer contracts and unemployment insurance, help provide a better life for the average person.

In Persepolis, how can I compare Marjane's life in Iran and in Austria through the panels using the technique, tone and theme?

I think it's fair to say that she had fewer self-doubts as a little girl in the militantly repressive Iran than she had in the unstructured, unrestrained West. It's tempting to say that one thing might be connected to the other; maybe rebelling against the Religious Police gave her a sense of confidence and structure she was missing when sleeping outside in the parks of Vienna.

On the other hand, as a little girl, she...

I think it's fair to say that she had fewer self-doubts as a little girl in the militantly repressive Iran than she had in the unstructured, unrestrained West. It's tempting to say that one thing might be connected to the other; maybe rebelling against the Religious Police gave her a sense of confidence and structure she was missing when sleeping outside in the parks of Vienna.

On the other hand, as a little girl, she had a strong family watching her back and when she lived in Austria, they were far away. But don't all small children feel immortal, and aren't all adults afraid? The paramilitaries that oppressed her also, in a way, watched out for her and in Austria, nobody did.

As a kid, she had a hijab and a Walkman, and they were almost connected. In Austria, she had neither and was all the more vulnerable for it. She always acted tough as nails, but as she got older realized it was just an act.

Who is more ambitious at the opening point of the play, Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?

Macbeth never talks about his wife's ambitions, but she talks about his. Her soliloquy in Act 1, Scene 5 provides a good means to evaluate the relative strengths of their ambitions.

Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt beWhat thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature;It is too full o’ the milk of human kindnessTo catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great;Art not without ambition, but withoutThe...

Macbeth never talks about his wife's ambitions, but she talks about his. Her soliloquy in Act 1, Scene 5 provides a good means to evaluate the relative strengths of their ambitions.

Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be
What thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o’ the milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great;
Art not without ambition, but without
The illness should attend it.
.......................................................................
Hie thee hither,
That I may pour my spirits in thine ear,
And chastise with the valor of my tongue
All that impedes thee from the golden round,
Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem
To have thee crown'd withal.

Lady Macbeth obviously believes that her own ambition is stronger than that of her husband and that he will not act to become king unless she uses her persuasive powers. She is probably correct. We see throughout the beginning scenes that Macbeth has all sorts of misgivings about murdering Duncan. This should indicate that he is, as his wife says, not sufficiently ambitious to overcome his doubts and scruples. She is obsessed with the vision of becoming queen, but she cannot become queen until her husband becomes king. She overrides all his objections to going through with the plot to kill Duncan. She is so ambitious that she is blinded by her ambition. Macbeth is not blinded because he is not as strongly motivated. He sees all the possibilities of something going wrong and tries to explain them to her--but she won't listen. She believes or pretends to believe that all her husband's arguments against committing the murder are prompted by fear, which she stingingly calls cowardice.  It seems likely that Macbeth would not have killed King Duncan if his wife had not taken the lead, and this in itself seems to prove that she is more ambitious than her husband.

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

Fission or binary fission is a process of cell division, used by single-celled organisms (also known as prokaryotes). This division is a form of asexual reproduction and results in a genetically identical offspring. Prokaryotes contain a single DNA molecule. During the fission process, replication of this DNA molecules occurs and the cell ends up with two copies of DNA molecule. These molecules are separated and are attached to different parts of cell membrane. This part...

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

In comparison, eukaryotes undergo sexual reproduction.

Hope this helps. 

In "A Wagner Matinee" how would you describe Aunt Georgiana's life before she married Howard? I know she enjoys her previous life better but I do...

Before she married Howard, Georgiana lived in Boston, Massachusetts, where she was a music teacher. There, too, she was able to attend the symphony and was afforded cultural opportunities. However, on the desolate farm in Nebraska, Georgiana has been deprived of such opportunities and experiences.

Since music speaks to the soul, it is a language that cannot be replaced and it leaves an emptiness when it is absent. At the time of the setting of...

Before she married Howard, Georgiana lived in Boston, Massachusetts, where she was a music teacher. There, too, she was able to attend the symphony and was afforded cultural opportunities. However, on the desolate farm in Nebraska, Georgiana has been deprived of such opportunities and experiences.

Since music speaks to the soul, it is a language that cannot be replaced and it leaves an emptiness when it is absent. At the time of the setting of Cather's story, the only music that could be heard was that which one played oneself or what one heard at concerts and recitals. But, on the remote plains of Nebraska, there would be no such opportunities for concerts, or even recitals. Nor would there be enough time to travel to areas where there might be recitals and concerts.

Her nephew recalls the years when he lived with his aunt and her family in Nebraska as she faced the daunting tasks of farm life. In the evenings she would have him recite Latin declensions of nouns and conjugations of verbs. She heard him read Shakespeare or mythology from her old books. She taught him the scales on her little parlor piano, but she rarely spoke to him of music. When she realized that her nephew hungered for more, she held him and said poignantly, 

"Don't love it so well, Clark, or it may be taken from you. Oh! dear boy, pray that whatever your sacrifice may be, it be not that."

When she was young, Georgiana attended in Paris a performance of the Huguenots, an opera about the conflict between the Catholics and the Protestant Huguenots. Indeed, her previous life was one of comfort and culture, and one in which she delighted. For, when she attends the Wagnerian opera, she weeps from joy in the music and from sorrow for all that she has missed.

What mistake does Eckels make while the men are hunting in the story "A Sound of Thunder."

Eckels made the mistake of walking off the edge of the floating path while hunting dinosaurs in the past.  

"This fool nearly killed us. But it isn't that so  much, no. It's his shoes! Look at them! He ran off the Path. That ruins us! We'll forfeit! Thousands of dollars of insurance! We guarantee no one leaves the Path. He left it."

Travis is visibly upset when he says the above line, because he knows that there are possibly catastrophic repercussions of changing the present through actions...

Eckels made the mistake of walking off the edge of the floating path while hunting dinosaurs in the past.  

"This fool nearly killed us. But it isn't that so  much, no. It's his shoes! Look at them! He ran off the Path. That ruins us! We'll forfeit! Thousands of dollars of insurance! We guarantee no one leaves the Path. He left it."

Travis is visibly upset when he says the above line, because he knows that there are possibly catastrophic repercussions of changing the present through actions in the past.  When Travis does say those lines, the reader still doesn't know if Eckels's actions changed anything in the present.  Sure enough though, the present is different because Eckels stepped off of the path.  The written language on signs is a bit different and the system of government has been changed.  

"You joking? You know very well. Deutscher, of course! Who  else? Not that fool weakling Keith. We got an iron man now, a man with guts!

Upon realizing that things have changed, Eckels checks his boot.  On the bottom of the boot is more than mud. Eckels has killed a single butterfly.  That single death caused untold repercussions to ripple through history.  

Embedded in the mud, glistening green and gold and black, was a butterfly, very beautiful and  very dead

What would be an excellent and sophisticated thesis on the topic of a pathway to citizenship in the US?

What would make an excellent and sophisticated approach to talking about the issue of immigration and paths to citizenship is to move away from generalities and partisanship and focus in depth on some particular group of immigrants or some particular aspect of the issue.

For example, you might use as a thesis a statement "Before we talk about a path to citizenship in very general terms, we should try to look at how such a...

What would make an excellent and sophisticated approach to talking about the issue of immigration and paths to citizenship is to move away from generalities and partisanship and focus in depth on some particular group of immigrants or some particular aspect of the issue.

For example, you might use as a thesis a statement "Before we talk about a path to citizenship in very general terms, we should try to look at how such a path might affect [your home town]." Next, you should research actual statistics about immigration and its effect on your town. You might start by looking at when the town was founded. Unless you live on a Native American reservation, your ancestors themselves were once immigrants to the United States, as were those of everyone else in your town without a tribal affiliation. 

After discussing how various waves of immigration resulted in the foundation and growth of your town, you might discuss current statistics concerning more recent immigrants, legal and illegal. Next, you might try to analyze how different patterns of paths to citizenship would actually affect your town. In some towns, paths to citizenship might mean that a few dozen children of long-time residents would become full citizens, where in other areas the numbers might be far greater.

What would make such an analysis sophisticated is that it would be based on detailed and nuanced local data rather than campaign rhetoric. 

Describe Brian's plan to land the plane when it ran out of fuel?

The sequence in question is in chapter 2.  The pilot of the plane has had a heart and has died.  Brian is in control of the aircraft and had been able to make brief radio contact with somebody.  After losing radio contact, Brian tries every ten minutes to raise somebody on the radio.  Throughout that time, Brian debates whether or not to take the plane down to the first clearing that he sees or stay...

The sequence in question is in chapter 2.  The pilot of the plane has had a heart and has died.  Brian is in control of the aircraft and had been able to make brief radio contact with somebody.  After losing radio contact, Brian tries every ten minutes to raise somebody on the radio.  Throughout that time, Brian debates whether or not to take the plane down to the first clearing that he sees or stay in the air until the plane runs out of fuel.  Brian opts for the latter choice.  His plan is to put the plane into a shallow dive once the fuel runs out.  That will keep his airspeed up and air moving over the control surfaces.  That will give him some lift and rudder control.  While, in the shallow dive, Brian will direct the plane toward the nearest lake.  His plan is to crash the plane into a lake and soften the crash by pulling up at the last second.  That will trade air speed for increased lift, slow him a bit, and hopefully soften the crash landing.  

When the plane ran out of gas he should hold the nose down and head for the nearest lake and try to fly the plane kind of onto the water. That's how he thought of it. Kind of fly the plane onto the water. And just before it hit he should pull back on the wheel and slow the plane down to reduce the impact.

What is Miller's criticism on the American dream in All My Sons?

Arthur Miller is making a statement about achieving the American dream through Joe Keller, who will do anything to obtain it. Joe, a manufacturer of airplane cylinder heads, knowingly ships out defective parts to be put in airplanes pilots will fly in WWII.  His dishonesty risks the lives of American fighters.  Although he is acquitted of sending defective parts (after blaming his partner), Joe ends up committing suicide because of the guilt he feels.  Even...

Arthur Miller is making a statement about achieving the American dream through Joe Keller, who will do anything to obtain it. Joe, a manufacturer of airplane cylinder heads, knowingly ships out defective parts to be put in airplanes pilots will fly in WWII.  His dishonesty risks the lives of American fighters.  Although he is acquitted of sending defective parts (after blaming his partner), Joe ends up committing suicide because of the guilt he feels.  Even though he says he did it for his family, sons, and the success and money the parts bring him, Joe, in essence, puts “America’s sons” in harms way. 

Arthur Miller makes a statement in All My Sons about how those with power will do anything to achieve their dreams.  The symbolic American dream is often obtained through hard work, not dishonesty, and Miller believes that those who achieve it should also protect and keep others safe.  Unfortunately, those who seek fortunes and the American dream of success often hurt those who are not as capable of achieving it.  The pilots and soldiers were fighting for the American dream of freedom, and it was Joe Keller’s duty to keep American soldiers safe.   Joe Keller’s greed put that in jeopardy. 

The tendency of moving object to continue moving in a straight line or a stationary object to remain in place is called __________________.

The tendency of a moving object to continue moving in a straight line or a stationary object to remain in its place is called inertia.

In other words, inertia is the resistance of a physical object to a change in the object’s motion. A change to the object’s motion may include a change in the object’s speed or direction.

This correlates to Newton’s first law of motion that states “an object at rest stays at...

The tendency of a moving object to continue moving in a straight line or a stationary object to remain in its place is called inertia.

In other words, inertia is the resistance of a physical object to a change in the object’s motion. A change to the object’s motion may include a change in the object’s speed or direction.

This correlates to Newton’s first law of motion that states “an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Prior to Newton, it was believed that a moving object would eventually stop moving. Also before Newton, it was thought that a force was required to keep a moving object from stopping.

What is the primary conflict in "An Ounce of Cure"? Why?

“An Ounce of Cure” is a short story that centers on an unnamed girl (the narrator of the story) who lives with her family in a small, highly conservative town. She falls in love with a boy called Martin Collingwood, who is a senior at her school. The relationship lasts two months only, after which Martin starts a new relationship with a girl called Mary Bishop, who acts alongside Martin in the school’s Christmas play....

“An Ounce of Cure” is a short story that centers on an unnamed girl (the narrator of the story) who lives with her family in a small, highly conservative town. She falls in love with a boy called Martin Collingwood, who is a senior at her school. The relationship lasts two months only, after which Martin starts a new relationship with a girl called Mary Bishop, who acts alongside Martin in the school’s Christmas play. The end of the relationship presents the beginning of the narrator’s problems as she tries to survive her first heartbreak.

The narrator struggles internally with Martin’s rejection. She “hangs around the places where he can be seen, and then pretends not to see him,” “she pines and weeps for him endlessly.” She tries to take all the aspirins in the bathroom cabinet but stops at six. Even her mother notices that something is the matter with her. She is “mortally depressed.” It is in this state of mind that she goes to babysit at the Berrymans’ home and eventually pours herself two glasses of whiskey, even though her own parents and most people she knows in the town do not drink. She must think that the aspirin tablets or whiskey could put an end to her misery. She is an adolescent who is struggling to make the right decisions, to find a footing in a largely conservative environment. The main conflict in the story is thus to be found within the narrator herself as she fights against feelings of helplessness and unworthiness.

Note that drinking the whiskey at the Berryman’s home makes her quite the outcast in her town. It earns her “the most sinful reputation in her school” until many months later when another girl commits a worse “sin” that steals the limelight. However, it also helps her to heal from the heartbreak by allowing her to face “the terrible and fascinating reality of her problems.”

How did Rikki get his name in "Rikki-tikki-tavi? What literary term is this?

Rikki got his name from the sound he makes, an example of onomatopoeia.

Onomatopoeia is a sound device where a word is used that makes a sound.  The words are usually spelled to represent the sound.  In this case, the sound is the war cry of the mongoose.

His eyes and the end of his restless nose were pink; he could scratch himself anywhere he pleased, with any leg, front or back, that he chose...

Rikki got his name from the sound he makes, an example of onomatopoeia.

Onomatopoeia is a sound device where a word is used that makes a sound.  The words are usually spelled to represent the sound.  In this case, the sound is the war cry of the mongoose.

His eyes and the end of his restless nose were pink; he could scratch himself anywhere he pleased, with any leg, front or back, that he chose to use; he could fluff up his tail till it looked like a bottle-brush, and his war-cry, as he scuttled through the long grass, was: ``Rikk-tikk-tikki-tikki-tchk!''

Since Rikki is an animal, it makes sense that he might get his name from the sound of the noise that he makes.  A mongoose is a very brave creature, and according to Kipling a mongoose is also incredibly curious.  While snakes are the natural enemy of the mongoose, Rikki is not even afraid of the cobras.

He was afraid for the minute; but it is impossible for a mongoose to stay frightened for any length of time, … and he knew that all a grown mongoose's business in life was to fight and eat snakes.

Rikki makes his war cry when he is on the hunt.  Throughout the story, Rikki successfully kills three snakes.  He kills the small but deadly Karait first, and then follows it up with the successful deaths of the two cobras, Nag and his wife Nagaina.  He protects the humans that are living in the house, and the other animals in the garden.

Personification is often used in stories that serve as fables.  Animals are given human traits and values.  In this story, we learn the effects of colonialism through Rikki and the cobras.  Rikki comes in and believes he owns the place.  His war cry is the death knell to the original inhabitants of the garden, the cobras.  While we may cheer for the mongoose, it is important to remember that the snakes were there first.

What is the connection between the narrator's people and the gods in "By The Waters of Babylon"?

There are two ways in which this question may be answered – in speaking of the spiritual connection between the people and their gods, or in speaking of the physical connection.  The second is obvious:  the people are men, the gods are men.  The story takes place in some undefined post-apocalyptic future, in which, at least in the northeastern United States, civilization has fallen into ruin, and those who remain generations after the doom of...

There are two ways in which this question may be answered – in speaking of the spiritual connection between the people and their gods, or in speaking of the physical connection.  The second is obvious:  the people are men, the gods are men.  The story takes place in some undefined post-apocalyptic future, in which, at least in the northeastern United States, civilization has fallen into ruin, and those who remain generations after the doom of the modern age remember their distant ancestors only in the form of mysterious, magical gods.

The spiritual connection is more difficult to define, for the attitude of the people is not the same as the attitude of the narrator.  The narrator is “a priest, and the son of a priest,” and therefore is allowed by social code to be more intimate with the gods, and have a greater understanding of them by going into the Dead Places and gaining knowledge.  Even for the priests, however, it is forbidden to journey to the East, for that way lies New York City, or, as the hill people call it, the Place of the Gods, a sacred place of great destruction.  This indicates that the people, in general, seem to be fearful of the gods, in the same way one is fearful of disease.  One can imagine New York and all those “gods” who had been killed as if they were under quarantine – the narrator describes touching old bones as “a great sin,” and any priest who ventures into the Dead Places for metal must be purified upon his return.

The narrator’s relationship, in contrast, evolves from one of wariness to one of total understanding – he harbors the same fear, at first, as the rest of his people, but his (very human) thirst for knowledge sends him deep into the heart of the Place of the Gods, where he encounters a preserved body and discovers that the gods are indeed merely men, men who “ate knowledge too fast.”  And so we see that these gods are not to be feared, but their ways – our ways, as a civilization that has developed so, so quickly – perhaps should be feared.  As the narrator’s father says upon his son’s return from New York, “It was not idly that our fathers forbade the Dead Places.”  There is an instinctive sort of misgiving in the hearts of the people that stems partially from misunderstanding, but also partially from self-preservation:  let not the fate of the gods fall also upon us.

Explain how barriers to communicate may be overcome socially.

There are multiple ways to overcome barriers to effective communication in a social setting. In healthcare, in particular, understanding the barriers and appropriate communication tools will assist in moving forward with effective communication.

First, both the speaker and the listener need to be actively involved in the communication. Moreover, each must recognize that more is being communicated than the spoken word or what is heard. Each member must respect the other's viewpoint, as well as...

There are multiple ways to overcome barriers to effective communication in a social setting. In healthcare, in particular, understanding the barriers and appropriate communication tools will assist in moving forward with effective communication.

First, both the speaker and the listener need to be actively involved in the communication. Moreover, each must recognize that more is being communicated than the spoken word or what is heard. Each member must respect the other's viewpoint, as well as understand their reference point and cultural perspective.

Second, each individual in the communication must recognize what their personal biases are in the scenario. Everyone brings their own past judgements and perceptions to a situation. Recognizing individual judgements and perceptions will help in better understanding other issues, such as cultural differences. 

Third, those communicating to each other should recognize other additional issues brought to the table. Those issues may involve information brought in from outside sources, or be the result of changed language from an interpreter, a lack of understanding of the issue, or the result of needing to add additional information to illuminate the conversation. For example, in a doctor-patient relationship, a doctor may use words or scenarios that a patient does not understand. On the other hand, a patient may be using a point of reference based on cultural, socioeconomic, or familial involvement. 

My teacher told me that pits are areas in a plant cell where there is no secondary cell wall. Is this true for all types of plant cells and all...

Your teacher is correct. Secondary cell walls make the cell walls more resistant to degradation, but are less flexible and decrease the amount of water permeability. Pits are openings (holes if you prefer) in the secondary wall that are used for cellular transportation. They are also responsible for allowing cell to cell communication by letting the plasmodesmata connect to other cells through the secondary wall.So, if a plant cell has pits, it has a...

Your teacher is correct. Secondary cell walls make the cell walls more resistant to degradation, but are less flexible and decrease the amount of water permeability. Pits are openings (holes if you prefer) in the secondary wall that are used for cellular transportation. They are also responsible for allowing cell to cell communication by letting the plasmodesmata connect to other cells through the secondary wall.

So, if a plant cell has pits, it has a secondary cell wall, because pits are openings in this specific wall. As we will see, not all plant cells have secondary walls!

Secondary walls are only present in cells in which it develops. An example of a plant cell type without a secondary cell wall (thus without pits) is the parenchyma, one of the main types of plant tissue.

Lacking the secondary wall, parenchyma cells are known to be more flexible, as they are thinner.

I hope I gave you the proper definition you were looking for, and was able to give you a clear understanding of which plant cell types contain pits!

What does the symbol "wind" mean in the story "Rules of the Game" by Amy Tan?

The wind in "The Rules of the Game" symbolizes cunning and strategy.  In the beginning of the story, Waverly's mother teaches her the art of invisible strength. This art is defined as a way to win arguments and gain the respect of people. Within this context, Waverly's mother also says that the strongest wind cannot be seen. She states:

In Chinese we say, Come from South, blow with wind-poom!-North will follow. Strongest wind cannot be...

The wind in "The Rules of the Game" symbolizes cunning and strategy.  In the beginning of the story, Waverly's mother teaches her the art of invisible strength. This art is defined as a way to win arguments and gain the respect of people. Within this context, Waverly's mother also says that the strongest wind cannot be seen. She states:

In Chinese we say, Come from South, blow with wind-poom!-North will follow. Strongest wind cannot be seen."

As one can see, there is an emphasis on invisibility. To put it another way, the art of invisible strength, which Mrs. Jong teaches, and the wind both cannot be seen.  In this way, Mrs. Jong is trying to teach Waverly to be wise and cunning.  For example, it is not bad to appear weak at times.  In fact, this can be a great asset, if it this weakness is feigned and followed by strength. 

Waverly proves to be an apt pupil, especially in the area of chess.  In one of her first tournaments, she states that the wind taught her secrets.  The wind taught her to avoid traps and presumably to set them to win.  I will quote this section of the story in length.

A light wind began blowing past my ears. It whispered secrets only I could hear.

"Blow from the South," it murmured. "The wind leaves no trail." I saw a clear path, the traps to avoid...The wind blew stronger. "Throw sand from the East to distract him." The knight came forward ready for the sacrifice. The wind hissed, louder and louder. "Blow, blow, blow. He cannot see. He is blind now. Make him lean away from the wind so he is easier to knock down." 

"Check," I said, as the wind roared with laughter.

Finally, the notion of the wind appear at the end of the story, when Waverly and her mother are in conflict.  Waverly knows that her mother's wind cannot be seen.  So, she fears and contemplates her next move. 

What literary devices are used in the poem?

"Richard Cory," a ballad by Edwin Arlington Robinson, tells the story of a rich man who committed suicide. It uses some literary devices that are common in short or long fiction, including first person point of view, foils, figurative language, and irony.

The narration of the story comes from "we," an unnamed individual who groups himself in with the poor people of the town where Richard Cory lives. The effect of first person narration is...

"Richard Cory," a ballad by Edwin Arlington Robinson, tells the story of a rich man who committed suicide. It uses some literary devices that are common in short or long fiction, including first person point of view, foils, figurative language, and irony.

The narration of the story comes from "we," an unnamed individual who groups himself in with the poor people of the town where Richard Cory lives. The effect of first person narration is to give the reader a limited perspective. We can only see and know what the narrator sees and knows; we cannot get inside the head of Richard Cory. Thus the ending comes as a complete surprise.

A foil is a literary device that uses characters that contrast sharply with each other. The contrast makes the qualities of each character more prominent. In this case, the townspeople are foils for Richard Cory, and vice versa. The opulent wealth of Richard Cory, his clothing, his manners, and his looks--all these stand in contrast to the "regular" people in the town who live in poverty, do not dress well, don't have the best manners, and are not so handsome. Richard Cory seems to have not a care in the world, while the other townspeople toil endlessly and can only hope for "light" in the future. Richard Cory's wealth highlights the poverty of the other people, and the poverty of the others makes his wealth all the more obvious.

The author uses figurative language when he compares Richard Cory to a king, and he uses the word "light" to represent hope or better fortune in the future.

Irony means that situations turn out the opposite of what one might expect. A twist or surprise ending is ironic. In this poem, when Richard Cory kills himself with no apparent warning, it is ironic because he seemed to have everything a man could want. If anyone would have been expected to commit suicide, it would have been one of the poor residents of the town who "worked and waited for the light." The unexpected ending is what makes this poem so powerful and memorable. 

In The Story of My Life, what were the difficulties faced by Helen in the Cambridge school?

When Keller attended the Cambridge School to prepare for college, it, like most schools during that time period, had little experience in making accommodations for special needs students like Keller.

Although she was in many ways well prepared academically, Keller's disabilities nevertheless left her at a disadvantage. She had to take the added step of preparing her Latin in Braille so that she could recite her lessons aloud in class. She was unable to take...

When Keller attended the Cambridge School to prepare for college, it, like most schools during that time period, had little experience in making accommodations for special needs students like Keller.

Although she was in many ways well prepared academically, Keller's disabilities nevertheless left her at a disadvantage. She had to take the added step of preparing her Latin in Braille so that she could recite her lessons aloud in class. She was unable to take notes or do in-class assignments, so she had to take extra time to type up notes and in-class exercises after she got home, adding to her workload. It was difficult for her to get the raised print textbooks she needed, and therefore she had to rely on Miss Sullivan to read for her all the books she couldn't buy in a usable format. Miss Sullivan had to attend class with Keller and write into her hand what was said. Despite the extra challenges, Keller enjoyed attending the school and interacting with other students. Because she was highly motivated and because the school was supportive of her, her difficulties were not insurmountable.

Do you see any conflict between your desire to be as profitable as possible and your desire to pay employees a living wage?

Just by basic accounting, there seems to be a tension here. A certain amount of revenue comes in R. A certain amount is paid out in expenses E. A certain amount is paid out in wages W. What's left is profit P.

P = R - E - W

It would seem at first glance, therefore, that paying higher wages necessarily means making lower profits. And many managers appear to think so, and will do whatever they can to cut wages or lay off workers in order to raise their profit margins.

But we economists know better. Economics is not just accounting.

Many companies have failed because their managers were too short-sighted to see why paying higher wages can be a good idea in the long run.

Think about why we pay wages in the first place. Is it out of the goodness of our hearts? Are wages an altruistic act, a form of donation? In general, no. We intentionally distinguish between wages and donations both ethically, legally, and economically.

As was first noted by Adam Smith in the late 18th century, wages are paid out of long-term self-interest. Wise business managers know that higher wages will attract better workers, and retain them longer. They know that paying a fair market wage will prevent their workers from leaving for better jobs.

In a perfectly-competitive market, in fact, you'd have no choice but to pay whatever wage the market will bear. Any less and all your workers would leave. Any more and you'd be overrun with applicants you had no way to hire.

Of course, in the real world markets are not perfectly competitive, so companies do have some power to set higher or lower wages. One strategy would be to intentionally pay the lowest wage you can, and accept the turnover; this might make sense if you know that it is easy to find and train new workers. Another strategy would be to intentionally pay higher wages, in order to ensure that your workers stick around; this might make sense if you know that workers with the necessary skills are rare and training is costly. Different strategies can persist in the same industry, which is likely part of why we see significant dispersion of wages (or significant variation in wage rate) across different companies within the same industry. Reducing your profits to raise wages need not be altruistic; it could simply be a long-term investment in the health of your company.

There could also be some altruistic component; some employers may decide that they are willing to sacrifice some portion of their profits, even in the long run, in order to pay workers a higher wage. A market with monopolistic competition actually allows more such discretion than a perfectly-competitive market would. But this is not the only reason to raise wages, and some economists argue it would not even be a good reason; better to donate the extra profits to charity rather than raise wages above the market-clearing rate.

What are the theoretical views of the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan?

World War II devastated the Western European economies. The United States recognized that it was in their best economic and strategic interest to help rebuild these economies, and the Marshall Planwas designed with that in mind. They spread 12 billion dollars across 18 European countries with over half going to England, France, and West Germany. Part of the U. S. motivation was to prevent these countries from veering toward communism. History has proved that...

World War II devastated the Western European economies. The United States recognized that it was in their best economic and strategic interest to help rebuild these economies, and the Marshall Plan was designed with that in mind. They spread 12 billion dollars across 18 European countries with over half going to England, France, and West Germany. Part of the U. S. motivation was to prevent these countries from veering toward communism. History has proved that the plan was successful. The United States also knew that it would benefit from an economically improving Europe—we needed trading partners with functioning economies.

The Truman Doctrine was even more specifically directed at stopping the spread of communism. Shortly after World War II Eastern European countries quickly fell into the Soviet communist bloc. The West was worried about the domino effect—the idea that the conversion of one country to communism would lead to another and to another. Right after World War II that seemed to be what was happening. So, the Truman Doctrine offered military and economic aid to countries in danger of being taken over by communist sympathizers or forces. The initial focus of the Truman Doctrine was Greece and Turkey. Eventually the policy led to the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

In The Watsons Go to Birmingham, Momma makes the children wear many clothes to school in the winter—true or false?

This is true. Momma makes the children wear many layers of clothes in winter because she is from Alabama and is still shocked by the cold winters in Flint, Michigan, where she is raising her family. Mrs. Watson is so concerned about the cold that she buys each of the children two pairs of warm, fur-lined gloves each winter, even though the family doesn't have much money. 

Joey, the youngest Watson sibling, complains about the...

This is true. Momma makes the children wear many layers of clothes in winter because she is from Alabama and is still shocked by the cold winters in Flint, Michigan, where she is raising her family. Mrs. Watson is so concerned about the cold that she buys each of the children two pairs of warm, fur-lined gloves each winter, even though the family doesn't have much money. 

Joey, the youngest Watson sibling, complains about the many layers of clothes that Momma makes her wear, so Byron tells her a story to make her wear them without whining. He tells her that Momma is trying to protect her from dying in the cold and that the garbage trucks that come around early in the morning hours are actually being used to pick up dead, frozen people. After hearing this, Joey is terrified and wears Momma's many layers without issue.

What does the king enjoy doing in the arena in "The Lady or The Tiger"?

The semi-barbaric King in “The Lady or the Tiger” uses the arena as a system of justice.  Unlike the ancient Romans who had gladiators fighting and lions eating Christians, the King doles out his brand of justice to the amusement of a crowd who doesn’t know what is going to happen.

Frank Stockton, the author, describes how the arena is used when he writes, “This vast amphitheater, with its encircling galleries, its mysterious vaults, and...

The semi-barbaric King in “The Lady or the Tiger” uses the arena as a system of justice.  Unlike the ancient Romans who had gladiators fighting and lions eating Christians, the King doles out his brand of justice to the amusement of a crowd who doesn’t know what is going to happen.

Frank Stockton, the author, describes how the arena is used when he writes, “This vast amphitheater, with its encircling galleries, its mysterious vaults, and its unseen passages, was an agent of poetic justice, in which crime was punished, or virtue rewarded, by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance.”

The arena is a theater of execution or reward where poetic justice or where one gets what one deserves takes place.  By having justice carried out by chance, the outcome of a person’s punishment or reward is left up to fate rather than a fair trial where one can prove one’s innocence. This is what makes the society in the story “semi-barbaric.”

In the case of the Princess, only she (after bribing a guard) knows that behind one door is a tiger and behind the other a beautiful woman.  The Princess can signal to her lover the door with the tiger thus killing him, or she can signal to the door with the beautiful women, sparing his life but losing him to another woman. It is not by “chance” in this instance, for the Princess knows what’s behind each door.  However, the moral decision she makes will determine if she is “civilized” or has given in to her “barbaric” heritage.

(I've often wondered how the King in the story handles giving out rewards in the arena.  Are there two doors where behind each door a different fate is found?  Is there a pot of gold behind one door and something horrible behind the other? Who knows?)

Compare Napoleon and Boxer from Animal Farm.

On first glance, Napoleon and Boxer share some important similarities. They have a common enemy in Mr Jones, for example, and both take part in the Rebellion to overthrown him (in Chapter One). They also share a strong belief in the principles of Animalism and a commitment to the Seven Commandments.

In the aftermath of the Rebellion, however, the differences between Napoleon and Boxer increase in both strength and number. Boxer, for example, dedicates his...

On first glance, Napoleon and Boxer share some important similarities. They have a common enemy in Mr Jones, for example, and both take part in the Rebellion to overthrown him (in Chapter One). They also share a strong belief in the principles of Animalism and a commitment to the Seven Commandments.

In the aftermath of the Rebellion, however, the differences between Napoleon and Boxer increase in both strength and number. Boxer, for example, dedicates his life to the running of Animal Farm. He works himself as hard as he possibly can, far harder than any of the other animals, and is defined by his personal motto: "I must work harder." In contrast, Napoleon is defined by his increasing self-interest: in Chapter Two, for instance, he steals the milk so that it can be mixed into his mash.

Napoleon's self-interest intensifies over the next chapters: he moves into the farmhouse, for instance, and begins to sleep in a bed. These actions directly contravene the Seven Commandments and, in stark contrast, Boxer maintains his dedication to these rules. He works harder than ever on the building and rebuilding of the windmill, for example, and blames himself for the violence perpetrated by Napoleon in Chapter Seven:

It must be due to some fault in ourselves. The solution, as I see it, is to work harder. From now onwards, I shall get up a full hour earlier in the mornings.

While Napoleon's self-interest is rewarded with absolute power on the farm, Boxer's loyalty leads to his own demise when Napoleon sells him to a glue manufacturer. Boxer thus learns too late the true cost of his blind loyalty. 

Give a short biography of the 37th U.S. President, Richard Nixon.

Most American presidents come from families that are either rich or, at the very least, comfortably well-off.  Richard Nixon was different than most American presidents in this way. He ended up being very different from all other American presidents as he was the only one (so far) to have been forced from office in the middle of a term.

Richard Nixon was born in 1913.  His parents had a small lemon farm that failed while...

Most American presidents come from families that are either rich or, at the very least, comfortably well-off.  Richard Nixon was different than most American presidents in this way. He ended up being very different from all other American presidents as he was the only one (so far) to have been forced from office in the middle of a term.

Richard Nixon was born in 1913.  His parents had a small lemon farm that failed while Nixon was a child. They then had a family store in which all family members worked.  The family was so poor that Nixon had to turn down a scholarship to go to Harvard because the family could not afford the cost of getting him to and from Massachusetts.  Nixon ended up attending Whittier College in California. After graduating, he got a full scholarship to attend law school at Duke University, where he got a degree in 1937.

Nixon returned to California to practice law.  He married Thelma Ryan (better known as “Pat) in 1940. Nixon volunteered for military service and served in the Navy in WWII. 

After the war, Nixon ran for and won a seat in Congress in 1946. He left the House and won a Senate seat in 1950.  In 1952, he was selected as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate and served as Vice President from 1953 to 1961.  He was selected largely because he had made a name for himself as a fierce anticommunist.

Nixon ran for President himself in 1960 but lost to John F. Kennedy. He spent 8 years out of office practicing law, but then returned to politics and won the 1968 presidential election. He was reelected in 1972. In 1974, Nixon was forced to resign from office because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Like most ex-presidents, Nixon traveled, gave speeches, and wrote books.  He died in 1994.

What is an example of a real world relationship where there is no clear independent or dependent variable?

This situation is actually more common than its opposite. It's quite rare in real-world research to have a clear idea of the direction of causality, and quite common to find strong correlations between variables where causation could run in either or both directions.Here are a few examples just from my own field of development economics:1. Corruption is strongly correlated to income inequality. Does corruption lead to inequality? Does higher inequality create more corruption? ...

This situation is actually more common than its opposite. It's quite rare in real-world research to have a clear idea of the direction of causality, and quite common to find strong correlations between variables where causation could run in either or both directions.

Here are a few examples just from my own field of development economics:
1. Corruption is strongly correlated to income inequality. Does corruption lead to inequality? Does higher inequality create more corruption?
2. GDP growth is strongly correlated with the empowerment of women. Does empowering women improve economic growth? Does an improving economy provide more opportunities for women?
3. Ethnic conflict is strongly correlated with poverty. Does greater ethnic conflict cause poverty? Does poverty exacerbate ethnic tensions?

In all these cases, it's also quite possible that both effects are true, or even that neither effect is true and a common cause of both drives the correlation. (For example, height is strongly correlated with weight in children. Does weight cause height or height cause weight? Well, neither, really; growth causes both height and weight.)

Here are some more examples from other fields as well:
1. Political science: Democracies are less likely to go to war with one another than authoritarian governments are. Does being democratic make a country less likely to go to war? Does being in a state of peace encourage the establishment of democratic institutions?
2. Sociology: Higher education is strongly correlated with lower rates of sexism. Does education make people less sexist? Or does being sexist discourage people from taking on higher levels of education?
3. Psychology: Higher socioeconomic status is correlated with lower rates of empathy. Does becoming rich make people less empathetic? Or are people with less empathy more likely to get rich?

Given the complete combustion of cyclohexane (C6H12 + 9O2 ---> 6CO2 + 6H2O), if 48 ml of cyclohexane are reacted with 86.7 liters of oxygen at STP,...

This is a stoichiometry question. Most stoichiometry calculations use one or more of the following mole conversion factors:

• 1 mole (mol) = molar mass of the substance in grams (molar mass must be calculated for each substance)

• 1 mole (mol) = 22.4 liters (L) for ideal gases at STP

• 1 mole (mol) = 6.02 x ~10^23 particles (molecules or atoms)

Step 1: Convert both given substances to moles. The reason we need to do this is that we will need to use mole coefficients later on to determine the limiting reactant and to perform the stoichiometry calculation.

• 
  Convert 86.7 L ~O_2 to moles: We can convert the 86.7 L of ~O_2 to moles by using the second mole conversion factor shown above:

              (86.7 L)(1 mol/22.4 L) = 3.87 mol ~O_2` `

• 
  Convert 48 mL ~C_6H_12 to moles: Since none of the mole conversion factors shown above contains mL, we must first convert "mL" to grams. We can convert from mL to grams by using the density given in the problem as a conversion factor. Then we can use the mole conversion factor containing grams (molar mass) shown above to convert to moles.

              (48 mL)(0.75 g/1 mL) = 36 g ~C_6H_12

              In order to use the conversion factor for moles and molar mass, we must calculate the molar mass of ~C_6H_12:

             Molar mass = (6 x 12.011) + (12 x 1.008) = 84.162 g ~C_6H_12

             Now we can use the mole conversion factor that contains the molar mass to convert to moles:

              (36 g)(1 mol/84.162 g) = 0.43 mol ~C_6H_12

Step 2: Determine the limiting reactant: Because you were given two reactants, you need to determine if one of them is a limiting reactant. The limiting reactant is the reactant that runs out first. The limiting reactant will be used as the starting substance for the stoichiometry calculation in Step 3.

To determine the limiting reactant, divide the moles of each reactant by the reactant's coefficient. The coefficients are found in the balanced equation.

• 
  Reactant ~O_2: 3.87 mol/9 = 0.43

• 
  Reactant ~C_6H_12: 0.43 mol/1 = 0.43

Compare the two answers. The reactant with the smallest answer is the limiting reactant. Since both answers are the same, the reactants will run out at the same time and neither reactant limits the reaction. Because of this, we can use either of the reactants to begin the stoichiometry calculation. You should get the same answer regardless of which reactant you use to begin the stoichiometry calculation.

Step 3: Perform the stoichiometry calculation: The general pattern of the stoichiometry calculation is:

(moles of reactant) x (coefficient ratio: product/reactant) x (mole conversion factor: 1 mol = 22.4 L)

Since neither reactant is limiting, let's perform the stoichiometry problem using both of the reactants as the starting substance. We should get the same amount of ~CO_2 produced either way.

• Stoichiometry calculation starting with moles of ~O_2:

        (3.87 mol ~O_2)(6 mol ~CO_2/9 mol ~O_2)(22.4 L/1 mol) =

         57.8 L ~CO_2

• Stoichiometry calculation starting with moles of ~C_6H_12: 

        (0.43 mol ~C_6H_12)(6 mol ~CO_2/1 mol ~C_6H_12)(22.4 L/ 1 mol) =

         57.8 L CO_2 

What does the Ghost of Christmas Past tell Scrooge?

The Ghost of Christmas Past visits Scrooge in the second part of "A Christmas Carol." When they first meet, the ghost tells Scrooge that he represents Scrooge's past, not the past in general, and that his visit is prompted by concern for Scrooge's welfare. What is most interesting about this opening conversation is that the ghost appears able to read Scrooge's thoughts. Internally, for example, Scrooge mocks the ghost's reason for visiting, believing that a...

The Ghost of Christmas Past visits Scrooge in the second part of "A Christmas Carol." When they first meet, the ghost tells Scrooge that he represents Scrooge's past, not the past in general, and that his visit is prompted by concern for Scrooge's welfare. What is most interesting about this opening conversation is that the ghost appears able to read Scrooge's thoughts. Internally, for example, Scrooge mocks the ghost's reason for visiting, believing that a night of unbroken sleep would have a more positive effect on his welfare. As if by telepathy, the ghost retorts that it is more a question of Scrooge's "reclamation" than of welfare.

The course of the ghost's visit continues along this theme. The ghost shows Scrooge painful memories of his childhood and formative years and appears to know the people from Scrooge's past intimately. Of his sister, Fanny, for instance, the ghost comments on her "large heart," a sentiment which Scrooge shares. 

The pair continue their journey through Scrooge's past. After seeing Belle, Scrooge's former fiancée, Scrooge asks the ghost to take him away from these memories, to which the ghost replies:

"I told you these were shadows of the things that have been,'' said the Ghost. "That they are what they are, do not blame me!''

Here, the ghost tells Scrooge something of crucial importance: that the present-day Scrooge is the product of these early experiences and that the only way to heal the pain of the past is to reform today. This message is so powerful that it begins the process of transformation in Scrooge, forcing him to accept how his actions have impacted the lives of others. This, then, is the foundation of Scrooge's reformation, which is steadily developed over his next two encounters.

How does Wyndham show that David’s father’s beliefs are wrong in The Chrysalids?

Wyndham shows that David’s father’s beliefs are wrong because he is abusive toward his son in the name of religious zealotry, and victimizes innocent children, even babies, because they somehow do not fit his narrow view of the world.

One of the ways that Wyndham demonstrates how ludicrous David’s father’s beliefs are is through the incident with Sophie.  Sophie was a girl with some extra toes.  This does not make her dangerous.  Yet according to the gospel of Joseph Strorm, it makes her an abomination.  Sophie has to hide, and is in fact caught and sterilized, then ostracized to the Fringes.  If this treatment of David’s friend were not bad enough, David’s father also tries to whip him, and does savagely beat him, even though he is just a child.

David demonstrates more compassion and forward-thinking than his father.  He too is a deviant, so maybe he understands.  David can read minds, and after what happens with Sophie, he shares with Rosalind and his other empath friends his perceptions on abominations and the true image.

I tried to explain that a person with a deviation -- a small deviation, at any rate -- wasn't the monstrosity we had been told. It did not really make any difference -- not to Sophie, at any rate. (Ch. 6)

As soon as David's secret is known, he will also be forced to flee.  His father does not care that David is his son.  In fact, it makes him more determined to see "justice" done and follow the law he so vigilantly enforces.

Another example of the horror of David’s father’s imposing religious doctrine is the baby.  David’s aunt Harriet brings a week old baby to the house, which does not have a certificate declaring it legal.  When David’s father asks about the certificate and finds out there isn’t one, his wife (whom David has already said is afraid of his father) asks to see the baby, while her sister protests that there is not much wrong with her.

'Nothing much!' snapped my mother. 'You have the effrontery to bring your monster into my house, and tell me it's nothing much!' (Ch. 7)

David’s father launches into a diatribe about why the baby is dangerous to their entire way of life, while poor Harriet, who has already lost other babies for apparently the same reason, cries and begs.  Joseph does not relent, telling her in “your arrogance you have set yourself against the law.”  He would turn in his own sister in law, and make her give up her baby.  David never finds out what is wrong with the baby, but his aunt kills herself.

These examples of religious zealotry and cruelty show that while the people are afraid, because of what happened to their ancestors, they have done away with compassion and common sense.  Instead, fear and fanaticism have taken root.  The fate of Sophie, David, and Harriet's baby are all examples.

Why is the exchange between Lady Macbeth and Duncan in Act 1, Scene 6, lines 25-31, ironic?

In these lines, Duncan asks after Macbeth's whereabouts since Macbeth rode ahead of the king's retinue to alert his household that the king was on his way.  Duncan says, 

We coursed him at the heels and had a purposeTo be his purveyor; but he rides well,And his great love, sharp as his spur, hath helped     himTo his home before us.  Fair and noble hostess,We are your guest tonight.  (1.6.26-31)

...

In these lines, Duncan asks after Macbeth's whereabouts since Macbeth rode ahead of the king's retinue to alert his household that the king was on his way.  Duncan says, 

We coursed him at the heels and had a purpose
To be his purveyor; but he rides well,
And his great love, sharp as his spur, hath helped
     him
To his home before us.  Fair and noble hostess,
We are your guest tonight.  (1.6.26-31)

Duncan jokes that his company followed close behind Macbeth in an attempt to beat him to his castle and announce him as being on his way (rather than the other way around), but Macbeth rode too well to be caught.  He says that it was likely Macbeth's great love of Lady Macbeth that drove him to ride so quickly and be able to get there so much sooner than they.  He then compliments Lady Macbeth. 

These lines are ironic for a couple of reasons: first, Duncan is right in that it was Macbeth's "great love" that made him ride so quickly.  But Macbeth didn't just want to come home and see his loving wife.  He needed to get there first so that they could conspire together how best to get rid of Duncan before Duncan actually arrived.  Second, Duncan calls her a "Fair and noble hostess," failing to realize that she is anything but.  She seems fair and noble, knowing exactly how to behave, how to compliment and honor him, but -- inside -- she is plotting his murder, hardly the behavior of a good hostess.  Both are examples of dramatic irony; dramatic irony occurs when the audience knows more than the character, and it is often used to build suspense, leading up to the climax of a text.  In this case, it does build tension as we realize just how trusting Duncan is of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, and how easy it will then be for them to kill him that night.

What can you learn from the role of women in Macbeth?

One thing that is striking about Macbethis the extent to which women are, to a great extent, the driving force behind the title character's rise and fall. The witches plant the idea of murder in Macbeth's mind in the third scene by hailing him as the future king of Scotland, and they misleadingly convince him of his own power and indestructibility through their prophecies. He trusts them until the end, when he discovers that...

One thing that is striking about Macbeth is the extent to which women are, to a great extent, the driving force behind the title character's rise and fall. The witches plant the idea of murder in Macbeth's mind in the third scene by hailing him as the future king of Scotland, and they misleadingly convince him of his own power and indestructibility through their prophecies. He trusts them until the end, when he discovers that they have led him astray. Similarly, Lady Macbeth is very influential, perhaps even decisive, in urging her husband to go through with the murder of Duncan. She questions his masculinity and his courage to persuade him to abandon his fears and his conscience to kill the sleeping king. She is initially remorseless, and urged Macbeth to be so as well. In short, Shakespeare gave these women characteristics that his contemporaries would have regarded as masculine. Though they are not by a long shot his only strong female characters, Shakespeare portrays their behavior as unnatural--the witches are described by Banquo as having beards, and Lady Macbeth is explicit in her desire to "unsex" herself to drive her husband to fulfill his destiny. So what we can learn about women's roles in Macbeth is that to Shakespeare and his contemporaries, operating outside of these roles was unnatural and potentially deadly. So the play indicates something of how gender and the natural order of things were viewed in Jacobean England. 

How does the name "Freak the Mighty" help Max to become a more confident person?

The "name" of "Freak the Mighty" is not really the thing that gives Max more self-confidence. “Freak the Mighty” is simply a label for the powerful friendship and incredible team that exists between Max and Kevin. It is that friendship that empowers Max.

Max has the problem of a lack of self-confidence from the beginning of the book. Even from a very young age, Max is a child acting out because he does not feel smart enough to be among his peers. Max retreats “down under” into Grim’s and Gram’s basement in order to escape the world. Max initiates the friendship between the two boys by offering to get a toy out of a tree for Kevin. The two soon team up in order to have adventures and beat the “bad guys” who end up being Blade and his gang as well as Max’s own father, Kenny “Killer” Kane.

The literal name of “Freak the Mighty” is the description of Kevin sitting on Max’s shoulders. Max is the “mighty” one here. Kevin has always been nicknamed “Freak” because of his birth defect. The name means nothing next to the power of the two boys together. In reality, they could have simply been called “Max and Kevin” or something else. The bond between the two boys would have been the same and would still have boosted Max’s self-confidence.

Max’s new self-confidence due to the friendship continues even after Kevin dies. At this point, Max can no longer be “Freak the Mighty” with Kevin. However, Max can immortalize his friend by writing down their adventures.

Who is more heroic, Sir Gawain or the Green Knight?

I would argue that Sir Gawain is the more heroic of the two. One of the key themes of this tale is to take pride in our humanity, including our imperfections. This theme is why even though Sir Gawain fails to a certain extent by accepting the girdle, he earns the right to wear this partial failure with pride. He is only a man, filled with imperfections, and yet he still chooses to live up...

I would argue that Sir Gawain is the more heroic of the two. One of the key themes of this tale is to take pride in our humanity, including our imperfections. This theme is why even though Sir Gawain fails to a certain extent by accepting the girdle, he earns the right to wear this partial failure with pride. He is only a man, filled with imperfections, and yet he still chooses to live up to his values.

This point is crucial to a comparison between the two characters. Gawain continues the challenge with the full knowledge that he could be killed. He knows that he is mortal and he suffers from all the same fears and insecurities that all of us must endure. And yet he continues with the challenge out of a sense of honor.

The Green Knight, while obviously an honorable character, takes no such risk. He fully knows that Gawain's attacks will not harm him. He is also a moral character in that he helps the hero learn a valuable lesson, but he never has to undergo the heroic ordeal of risking his own life for his values. Heroism is about overcoming basic human shortcomings for the sake of a greater ideal. This is not possible for a supernatural character such as the Green Knight.

Because Gawain is able to continually make the right choices despite his mortality and imperfection, I would say he is the more heroic character.

In Hemingway's short story "In Another Country," why does the major say that the narrator must not marry?

In the short story In Another Country, the major said a man must never marry. The main reason he said this was because he was a soldier. His concern was twofold. If he were married in wartime, he would have two worries. One is that he would be distracted in battle, thinking about leaving his wife all alone if he were to die. This would cause distraction, which could easily lead to his death.

The...

In the short story In Another Country, the major said a man must never marry. The main reason he said this was because he was a soldier. His concern was twofold. If he were married in wartime, he would have two worries. One is that he would be distracted in battle, thinking about leaving his wife all alone if he were to die. This would cause distraction, which could easily lead to his death.

The other reason he said a man should never marry is because of a fear of loss. The major is terrified of losing someone he loves, and says so.

This whole thing is ironic in the long run, because he marries a woman much younger than him so that he would not have to worry about losing her. He waits until he is out of the war to get married, for the above reason. He figured he would die first, being the much older person. The irony comes when she dies of illness, leaving him alone. All of those plans to keep from losing the person her loved were pointless.

How will the profit be affected if the fixed costs rise? How about reduced fixed and variable costs?

Profits will fall if fixed costs (or, for that matter, variable costs) rise.  Profits will rise if fixed costs or variable costs fall.

Fixed costs are those costs which do not change regardless of the level of production.  For example, a motel has fixed costs because it cost a fixed amount of money to build the motel and those costs (assuming they are still paying off a loan for the building) apply regardless of whether...

Profits will fall if fixed costs (or, for that matter, variable costs) rise.  Profits will rise if fixed costs or variable costs fall.

Fixed costs are those costs which do not change regardless of the level of production.  For example, a motel has fixed costs because it cost a fixed amount of money to build the motel and those costs (assuming they are still paying off a loan for the building) apply regardless of whether they have any guests in the rooms.  Variable costs are costs that change depending on the level of production.  With our motel example, the more guests the motel has, the more it has to pay housekeeping and the more money it spends on things like laundry detergent and food for the continental breakfast.

Profit can be defined as the amount to which revenues exceed costs.  If you take in more money than you expend in making your product, you make a profit.  If costs go down, profits will go up.  If costs go up, profits will go down.  Therefore, an increase in fixed or variable costs will reduce profits while a decrease in fixed or variable costs will cause profits to rise.

I have to graph trig functions, but when I graph it, it is always wrong. I know how to find the period and the altitude, but where do I start, and...

We will use a sine function as an example, but the method is general:

Suppose you are asked to graph `y=-2sin(1/3*pi(x+2))-2 `

This is of the form `y=asin(b(x-h))+k `

a: a is the amplitude. This is the maximum distance the graph takes from the midline. Note if a<0 the graph is reflected over the midline.

b: b yields the period; the period p is found by `p=(2pi)/b ` . (If you were graphing tangent or...

We will use a sine function as an example, but the method is general:

Suppose you are asked to graph `y=-2sin(1/3*pi(x+2))-2 `

This is of the form `y=asin(b(x-h))+k `

a: a is the amplitude. This is the maximum distance the graph takes from the midline. Note if a<0 the graph is reflected over the midline.

b: b yields the period; the period p is found by `p=(2pi)/b ` . (If you were graphing tangent or cotangent the numerator is pi.) This gives the horizontal distance required for the graph to begin repeating. (If b<0 the graph is reflected over a vertical line. It is often easier to rewrite the original function since sin(-x)=-sin(x) and cos(-x)=cos(x).)

h: h is the horizontal translation or phase shift. If h>0 shift to the right, if h<0 shift to the left h units.

k: y=k is the midline.

So for our example a=-2, b=1/3pi, h=-2 and k=-2

The graph is a transformed sine wave: the amplitude is 2, the graph is reflected over the horizontal, the period is 6, the graph is shifted left 2 units, and the midline is y=-2.

Here is a graph of each of the transformations with the final answer in green:

Red is the original sine, orange has amplitude 2 and has been reflected, blue has the change in period, purple has the phase shift, and green shifts vertically (moved the midline.)

Please provide examples which prove true love cannot run smoothly based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet begins by telling the audience, in the Prologue, that true love will not run smoothly. The Chorus, which is often the voice of Fate, explicitly says that "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life" because of "misadventured piteous overthrows" (Prologue.6-7). Basically it is saying that because of mistakes and sad losses, the two lovers will not enjoy love running smoothly because they will commit suicide. Also, a warning by the Fates should not be taken lightly; therefore, it can be inferred that Romeo and Juliet's love is written in the stars by the Fates and that means it is true love. But again, because of unfortunate events, love won't run smoothly for them and they won't come out of it alive. 

The next reference to love not being smooth, or easy, is by Romeo when he is discussing the subject with Mercutio. Romeo was unable to convince Rosaline to love him in the way he desired, so he is heartbroken. Romeo tells Mercutio that love is a heavy burden, to which Mercutio counters by saying "too great oppression for a tender thing" (I.iv.24). He means that love should be tender and easy-going, not an oppression. Romeo then asks the following:

"Is love a tender thing? It is too rough,

Too rude, too boist'rous, and it pricks like thorn" (I.iv.25-26).

Thus, Romeo is saying that love is not a smooth thing. He's been pricked like a thorn because things didn't work out with Rosaline; so, his experience with love tells him it's hard work. Mercutio tries to encourage Romeo to not give up by saying the following:

"If love be rough with you, be rough with love.

Prick love for pricking, and you beat love down" (I.4.27-28).

Once Romeo meets Juliet, though, all thoughts of Rosaline fly out of his mind. All of a sudden, love seems very easy. Upon their first meeting, Romeo is able to steal kisses from Juliet. Later during the balcony scene, Romeo's views of love have seem to change because he declares that "stony limits cannot hold love out" (II.i.9). Juliet is swept away by Romeo's charms and her own desires during this famous scene. She does try to come to her senses, though, by saying the following:

"Well, do not swear. Although I joy in thee,

I have no joy of this contract tonight.

It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden,

Too like the lightning which doth cease to be

Ere one can say it lightens" (II.i.158-162).

The above passage implies that love does not, or should not run so smoothly, especially if it is happening too quickly. She's also questioning the stability of the relationship because it is getting too serious and they've just met that night. It isn't enough to stop them from setting up a wedding for the next day, though.

Eventually life throws too much at Romeo and Juliet to bear, such as Romeo killing Tybalt and being banished. When Peter tells Romeo that Juliet is dead, Romeo recognizes Fate's hand in not allowing his love to run smoothly and he says, "Is it e'en so? Then I defy you, stars" (V.i.24). It is at this moment that Romeo decides to take matters into his own hands by planning to kill himself. He must figure that if the only way he will be able to love Juliet is in death, then so be it.

What systems in the body are affected by the nervous system to keep them running effectively in response to external influences?

It is only a slight exaggeration to say "all of them". The nervous system evolved originally for this function of regulating body systems, and only hundreds of millions of years later did it get co-opted into forming a brain for intelligent behavior. The nervous system regulates heartbeat, breathing, temperature through panting, sweating, or shivering, pupil dilation, hormones, blood sugar, and even the functioning of the kidneys and the gastrointestinal tract.Most of this regulation of...

It is only a slight exaggeration to say "all of them". The nervous system evolved originally for this function of regulating body systems, and only hundreds of millions of years later did it get co-opted into forming a brain for intelligent behavior.

The nervous system regulates heartbeat, breathing, temperature through panting, sweating, or shivering, pupil dilation, hormones, blood sugar, and even the functioning of the kidneys and the gastrointestinal tract.

Most of this regulation of various organs is done by the autonomic nervous system, which is primarily based in the spinal cord.

The functions of the autonomic nervous system are not under conscious control most of the time. We do have a limited amount of conscious control over some autonomic functions, and training can make people better at it, so that for example some people can hold their breath for a long time or slow down their heartbeat substantially. But the vast majority of the time, the autonomic nervous system is busy regulating our body to maintain homeostasis--conditions of roughly constant temperature and chemical distribution that are optimal for our cells and organs to function. You can think of it as falling back to a default setting when we aren't asserting control; this is why you can hold your breath if you want to, but you never just forget to breathe.

The autonomic nervous system is divided into two broad subsystems, the sympathetic system and the parasympathetic system. The sympathetic system is a stress response system evolved to make us more effective at "fight or flight"; the parasympathetic system is the counterpart that maintains our equilibrium when we are not under stress.

The liver actually has its own subsystem of the nervous system, the hepatic nervous system, which is not well understood. (The best article I could find on it was in fact published in a medical journal, so I apologize if it's too technical). We are still in the process of discovering some of the complex and subtle ways that the nervous system exerts control over the rest of the body.

Are there or should there be qualified legislatures for good governance & democracy?

The United States Constitution sets forth the qualifications necessary for the legislative branch of the federal government, but any qualifications for state legislatures would be a matter of each state's own constitution. As it stands, for the House, one must be 25 years of age, a citizen of at least seven years, and a resident of the state one seeks to represent. For the Senate, one must be 30 years of age, a citizen for...

The United States Constitution sets forth the qualifications necessary for the legislative branch of the federal government, but any qualifications for state legislatures would be a matter of each state's own constitution. As it stands, for the House, one must be 25 years of age, a citizen of at least seven years, and a resident of the state one seeks to represent. For the Senate, one must be 30 years of age, a citizen for 9 years, and inhabit the state one seeks to represent. I assume that most states have similar requirements. This leads to the second inquiry, as to whether there should be some additional qualifications required. 

There is certainly bound to be a difference of opinion on this matter, but I do not think any additional qualifications would lead to good governance and democracy.  Let's look at a few reasons for this.  The kinds of qualifications we would require would have to be objective ones and very general ones, for example, a college degree, a minimum IQ, or a license to practice law.  A college degree does not automatically confer wisdom or intelligence upon a person, any more than the Wizard of Oz could provide the Scarecrow with a brain.  If we required a college degree, I cannot see that there would be any meaningful improvement in the makeup of any legislature.  There are plenty of non-degreed people who are hardworking, intelligent, and have common sense, people who could do the work ably.  The IQ test, most people agree, is culturally biased and is able to test just a few forms of intelligence, those valued by schools, but by no means able to identify qualities such as creativity or perseverance. I am acquainted with many people with IQs lower than my own whom I consider to be wonderfully intelligent, just in ways I am not.  We would not want to eliminate such people from the pool.  In a democracy, we do not want to make a certain sum of assets to be a requirement, since that would tip the scales even more toward the wealthy than they are right now. If someone were to find some sort of litmus test, an objective means of assessing what makes for a good legislator, I would be for it, but as it stands right now, I can see no such means of judging.  

What are some quotes from The Crucible about loyalty and honesty?

The relationship between John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, has been damaged by his past infidelity with Abigail Williams. Elizabeth is somewhat suspicious of him still, and even John perceives his dishonesty and disloyalty to her as the major flaw in his character. The following conversation occurs during Act 2, when Elizabeth learns that John was alone with Abigail in town:

ELIZABETH: John, you are not open with me.  You saw her with a crowd you said. Now you--.

PROCTOR: I'll plead my honesty no more, Elizabeth. [....] No more! I should have roared you down when first you told me your suspicion.  But I wilted, and, like a Christian, I confessed.  Confessed! Some dream I had must have mistaken you for God that day. But you're not, you're not, and let you remember it! Let you look sometimes for the goodness in me, and judge me not.

ELIZABETH: I do not judge you. The magistrate sits in your heart that judges you. 

Elizabeth claims that John's perception of himself for his disloyalty to her is what keeps him feeling guilty, not her judgment of him for it. Ultimately, in many ways, it is he who suffers more greatly from his disloyalty and dishonesty because he must live with the guilt of having hurt her.

In Act 3, we can also see the way honesty is attached to reputation when it concerns John's relationship with Abigail.  The very fact that he is willing to tarnish his reputation by confessing to an adulterous affair with her is enough evidence for Danforth to believe in the truth of what he says.  

Further, John is willing to stake his entire testimony about his affair with Abigail (and thus her ulterior motives for her accusations) on his wife's reputation as an honest woman.  He says, "In her life, sir, she have never lied. There are them that cannot sing, and them that cannot weep -- my wife cannot lie." Danforth confirms that Elizabeth fired Abigail because she knew the girl was having an affair with John.  However, Elizabeth -- out of loyalty to her husband -- lies to Danforth, stating that her husband is not an adulterer. She sacrifices her honesty out of loyalty to the man she loves, and to save him from the way this information would blacken his reputation. "She only thought to save my name!" John cries, before Elizabeth is led away.

At this point, Reverend Hale can remain silent no longer. He says, "Excellency, it is a natural lie to tell; I beg you, stop now before another is condemned! I may shut my conscience to it no more -- private vengeance is working through this testimony! From the beginning this man has struck me true." He defends the Proctors because he believes they are, in the end, truthful and good people.  However, Elizabeth's one lie has essentially condemned them both beyond repair for Danforth.

In the end, in Act 4, Hale returns to Salem "to do the Devil's work," he says. "I come to counsel Christians they should belie themselves" and confess to witchcraft in order to save their own lives. Everyone originally assumed that the girls were telling the truth, and so that makes anyone who contradicts them a liar. Now, Hale believes that throwing away one's life is more important than the sin of lying in God's eyes.

Ultimately, John disagrees with him. It is John's final act of honesty that redeems him in his own eyes. After tearing up his written confession, unwilling to condemn his friends and tell Hale's lie, he says, "You have made your magic now, for now I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor." His ultimate choice to be honest, though it costs him his life, allows him to reclaim his sense of honor as a man. Elizabeth gets the final word, suggesting her agreement that this is the most important thing he can have; more important, even, than his life: "He have his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him!"

What literary devices are used in "Thank You, M'am"?

Literary devices are the tools an author uses--such as foreshadowing, imagery, hyperbole, characterization, and metaphor, to name a few--that provide the reader with details and bring the text to life.

In "Thank You, M'am" Hughes expertly uses many literary devices to capture the encounter between Roger and Mrs. Jones.

To bring the characters immediately to life and engage us in the story, Hughes starts the story with a characterization and conflict. Woven together in the...

Literary devices are the tools an author uses--such as foreshadowing, imagery, hyperbole, characterization, and metaphor, to name a few--that provide the reader with details and bring the text to life.

In "Thank You, M'am" Hughes expertly uses many literary devices to capture the encounter between Roger and Mrs. Jones.

To bring the characters immediately to life and engage us in the story, Hughes starts the story with a characterization and conflict. Woven together in the first paragraph of the story, these devices invite us quickly into the world of Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones.

"She was a large woman with a large purse that had everything in it but hammer and nails. It had a long strap, and she carried it slung across her shoulder. It was about eleven o'clock at night, and she was walking alone..."

In these words Hughes provides a brief but effective characterization of Mrs. Jones as a powerful, imposing, and fearless figure. Right away the author moves on to create a conflict when Roger dares to try and steal Mrs. Jones' purse, a device that draws the reader in, engaging him or her with the characters.

Lastly, along with characterization and conflict in the first paragraph of the story, the author provides the reader with effective imagery. The scene in which Roger attempts to take Mrs. Jones' purse is so graphically described that the reader immediately paints a picture of the confrontation in his or her mind.

"The strap broke with the single tug that the boy gave it from behind. But the boy's weight and the weight of the purse combined caused him to lose his balance...the boy fell on his back on the sidewalk and his legs flew up."

Throughout the remainder of the story, Hughes effectively uses other literary devices that allow the reader to effectively experience Roger's encounter with Mrs. Jones.

In "Thank you, M'am" what do we get to know about Mrs. Jones' background?

There is textual evidence that Mrs. Jones is no longer married, works late at a beauty parlor, and made some bad decisions herself at some point in her life.

We know that Mrs. Jones works until late at night, because most people would not be walking home when it’s almost midnight.  You do not walk alone that late in the city unless you have to.

It was about eleven o’clock at night, and she was walking alone, when a boy ran up behind her and tried to snatch her purse.

We also know that Mrs. Jonas was married, but does not seem to be currently married.  She appears to live alone except for the other roomers in the rooming house.

“…When I get through with you, sir, you are going to remember Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones.”

We also know that Mrs. Bates has a bit of a checkered past.  She tells Roger that she was “young once” and implies that she understands his desire to turn to crime.  She also tells him that she has done some bad things too.

“I have done things, too, which I would not tell you, son—neither tell God, if he didn’t already know. So you set down while I fix us something to eat. You might run that comb through your hair so you will look presentable.”

Mrs. Jonas tells Roger about her life, and we learn why she was walking out so late.

Instead, as they ate, she told him about her job in a hotel beauty-shop that stayed open late, what the work was like, and how all kinds of women came in and out, blondes, red-heads, and Spanish.

While these are all details of specific background information we are told, there is a lot we can infer about Mrs. Jones.  We can tell that she has not had an easy life.  We can also tell that she is somewhat lonely.  Whatever happened to her husband, he is not in the picture anymore but she still uses his name.  In addition to that, she lives alone except for the other boarders.  The fact that she is lonely explains why she took him in.

We do not know specifically if Mrs. Jones had children or not, but she either did or wanted them.  From the beginning of their encounter, Mrs. Jones both pities Roger and looks out for him.  She treats him sternly but lovingly.  She is aware that his life is not good—after all, he is out purse-snatching at eleven o’clock at night—but she does not see him as a criminal.  Instead, she sees a boy who has been led astray, making one bad choice that does not have to determine the rest of his life.

She could have turned him into the police.  Yet when she looked at him, she saw not a hardened criminal, but a boy whose unwashed face indicated that he had no one at home to look out for him.  She then fed him and told him that his life did not have to be a series of bad choices.  By letting him know the bad choice she made that she has overcome, she is able to show him that you can always turn your life around.

What logic leads Socrates to the conclusion that human wisdom is worthless? What are two fundamental ideas that back up his reasoning?

For Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living, yet Socrates finds the examined life to lead to the discovery that he has no wisdom. At the same time, the oracle of Delphi has declared Socrates to be the wisest man. To disprove the oracle, he searches for he who must be wiser than himself, as Socrates believes he has no wisdom, and yet, finds that it is those who think they are the most...

For Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living, yet Socrates finds the examined life to lead to the discovery that he has no wisdom. At the same time, the oracle of Delphi has declared Socrates to be the wisest man. To disprove the oracle, he searches for he who must be wiser than himself, as Socrates believes he has no wisdom, and yet, finds that it is those who think they are the most knowledgeable and wise who are indeed the most ignorant. Therefore, wisdom -- as expertise on matters of being human -- is only held by those who have not done enough examining to see their (true) ignorance, and thus the worthlessness of wisdom. If chasing wisdom is what makes a life both examined and worthwhile, then without the chase (which requires not having already achieved or grasped wisdom) there is no worth.

Why has Egeus brought his daughter and her two suitors to Theseus in A Midsummer Night's Dream?

Egeus wants Theseus to force his daughter to marry Demetrius, the man of his choice.

Egeus has a problem.  His daughter does not want to marry the man he chose for her to marry.  Instead, she fell in love with someone else.  He goes to the king of Athens, Theseus, and asks him to intercede.

Full of vexation come I, with complaintAgainst my child, my daughter Hermia.Stand forth, Demetrius. My noble lord,This...

Egeus wants Theseus to force his daughter to marry Demetrius, the man of his choice.

Egeus has a problem.  His daughter does not want to marry the man he chose for her to marry.  Instead, she fell in love with someone else.  He goes to the king of Athens, Theseus, and asks him to intercede.

Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my child, my daughter Hermia.
Stand forth, Demetrius. My noble lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.
Stand forth, Lysander: and my gracious duke,
This man hath bewitch'd the bosom of my child… (Act 1, Scene 1)

In Athens, a girl is basically the property of her father.  He will choose her husband, and she does not have a choice in the matter.  In this case, both Lysander and Demetrius are in love with Hermia but only one has his blessing.

Egeus tells Hermia that her father “should be as a god” to her, and his will is all that matters.  He gives her no good choices.  She can marry Demetrius, she can become a nun, or she can die.  As long as her father wants her to marry Demetrius, this is the situation.

Hermia reacts as most young girls would.  She insists that Lysander is “worthy” and begs for Theseus to pardon her.  Despite the dire consequences, she is stubborn.

So will I grow, so live, so die, my lord,
Ere I will my virgin patent up
Unto his lordship, whose unwished yoke
My soul consents not to give sovereignty. (Act 1, Scene 1)

Theseus urges her to take some time to think it over.  What she does do is try to elope with Lysander.  Things get extra complicated when she tells her friend Helena what is going on.  You see, Helena is in love with Demetrius!

As the pairs of lovers head into the forest, mayhem and hilarity ensue.  There are fairies and actors, and plenty of young hormones at work.  This is one of those instances where Egeus would have been better off just listening to his daughter.  In the end, he relents, and she is able to marry her love.  He would rather have his daughter with her choice than not have her at all.

Which muscle is used for intramuscular injection in children and adults?

Intramuscular injection (IM) refers to an injection (commonly referred to as a shot) which is administered into muscle tissue. As opposed to SC or IP injections, which are administered below the skin (subcutaneous) or into the peritoneum, respectively. 

IM injections are generally placed in either the deltoid (shoulder), gluteus (hip) or rectus femoris (thigh). These injection sites are chosen because they represent relatively large muscle which have areas free of major nerves or vessels. 

In...

Intramuscular injection (IM) refers to an injection (commonly referred to as a shot) which is administered into muscle tissue. As opposed to SC or IP injections, which are administered below the skin (subcutaneous) or into the peritoneum, respectively. 

IM injections are generally placed in either the deltoid (shoulder), gluteus (hip) or rectus femoris (thigh). These injection sites are chosen because they represent relatively large muscle which have areas free of major nerves or vessels. 

In general, the volume of the injection will determine the choice of muscle. Small injections can be placed in the deltoid. Larger volume injections must be placed into larger muscles. No single IM injection should exceed a volume of 5 ml. 

A child's deltoid will be smaller than that of an adult. Thus, a volume which is appropriate for injection into the deltoid of an adult may be better suited to the gluteus of a child.

By choosing a muscle appropriately sized for the volume of the injection, the health care professional can minimize the amount of pain associated with the injection.