Why is Eva unable to tell The Deweys apart in Toni Morrison's Sula, and what is their significance to the whole story?

It is not that Eva is unable to tell The Deweys apart, she simply thinks that there is no reason for them to have individuality.  The Deweys come to Eva's home on separate occasions, and each boy looks strikingly different from the other two.  Eva has taken on these boys because they are not cared for by their mothers or other family members.  When Hannah asks her mother how they are going to tell the boys apart if they all have the same name, Eva replies, "'What you need to tell them apart for?  They's all Deweys.'"  Because the boys abandon their given names, they take on the identity of Eva's home instead.  So the unwanted children find a new identity as members of a group:

"Slowly each boy came out of whatever cocoon he was in at the time his mother or somebody gave him away, and accepted Eva's view, becoming in fact as well as in name a dewey--joining with the other two to become a trinity with a plural name. . . inseparable, loving nothing and no one but themselves."

This is significant because the novel tackles issues of identity, and The Deweys suggest one aspect of the formation of identity.  They become one, and in the end, even die together on Shadrack's Suicide Day.

You would you be able to see people fish in Jonas's communtiy?yes or no? give reason why you chose that answer

In The Giver, Jonas's community was based on a Utopian ideal, meaning that it was supposedly perfect.  According to this society perfection is the absence of memory as well as everyone and thing having an assigned place and purpose.  If you remember, there were people who worked at the fish hatchery in order to produce food for the community.  The reasons people fish in today's society they are for recreation and to produce food.  Recreation and idleness are not characteristics of this community so it is safe to assume that fishing would not be allowed based on that tenant of the community.

Also, since someone of the community has been assigned to produce fish for the community to eat, a person who fishes would be doing a job that has already been assigned to a community member.  In doing this, them fishing for food becomes redundant since a community member has already been assigned to do it and the person would probably be looked upon in the community as being idle and forgetting their assigned responsibility.  They would probably be disciplined.  The assumption then would be that no, fishing would not be allowed in the community.

What is the plot of "The Last Leaf"?

In the short story “The Last Leaf,” by O. Henry, Sue and Johnsy met and decided to share a flat in May. In December, pneumonia started making the rounds in their neighborhood.  Johnsy got sick, and the Doctor told Sue that Johnsy had a 1 in 10 chance in surviving depending upon her attitude. Sue moved her painting supplies into Johnsy room to keep her company, and became puzzled when Johnsy started saying “ . . .twelve, eleven, ten . . .” She was counting leaves on the vine outside of their window, and she informed Sue that she expected to die when the last leaf fell.

Shortly thereafter, Sue was asking their old German neighbor Mr. Behrman to pose for her painting, and they got into a discussion about Johnsy, and she told Behrman that Johnsy expected to die when the last leaf fell from the vine. Behrman who was an artist who’d never painted a master piece agreed to sit for Sue, but when they look at the window at the vine they notice that the pounding rain and ice has knocked the last leaf off of the vine.  After painting Behrman, Sue falls asleep. The next day when Johnsy demands the blinds be raised so that she can see the vine, she notices there is still a leaf. The leaf stays and stays, and Johnsy decides she’ll survive. The next day they learn that Behrman has died of pneumonia, and Sue tells Johnsy the leaf Behrman painted outside the window was his life’s masterpiece.  

What are the problems a sociologist may face in seeking to interpret objectively the actions of other people?

The problems a sociologist would face in this attempt are the same that would be faced by any social scientist.  All social scientists are faced with the difficulty of seeing past their own cultural preconceptions or prejudices.

Sociologists who look at other people look at those people through the lens their own experiences.  They have a hard time adopting the ways of thought of the people they are observing.  Because of this, sociologists, and social scientists in general, are prone to misinterpreting or prejudging the behaviors of people they observe when those behaviors wouldn't "make sense" in the observer's own culture.

In the link below, scroll down to "Observer Bias."

Why is the point where price equals average variable cost considered the shut down point?

This is because once the price goes below that point, a firm is better off just closing down.

Let's think about what happens if a firm is producing at a price that is below their average variable costs.  Let's take a movie theater, for example.

Let's say it costs a theater $5 per person in variable costs to show a movie -- counting costs like the ticket takers, the electricity, the janitors, etc.  If the theater can only charge $4.50, for some reason, it loses money every time someone comes through the door.  So it should shut down.

If price is higher than AVC, but below average total costs, it should stay open because even if it loses money, it would still lose MORE money by closing.  That's why the ATC point is not the shut down point -- you still if price is less than ATC but more than AVC, you still lose less money by staying open.

In John Updike's short story "A&P", do you find anything admirable in the story from the standpoint of its language or its structure?

Although Sammy's chivalry is misguided, it is, nevertheless, admirable that he is not just a "sheep" who goes about his shopping and lining up "in the shooto" to be check out or, in his case, his tabulating of the customers' items.  While he does begin his narrative with cynicism, Sammy later reveals that he has been a repressed idealist as he does not just record his impressions, but finally acts upon them, rebelling against the compromises that must be made in the modern world, compromises to one's individuality and integrity:  "My stomach kind of fell as I felt how hard the world was going to be to me hereafter" is the ephiphany of Sammy, not unlike that of the boy in James Joyce's "Araby."

In Sammy's description of the three girls there is, initially, cynicism as he suggests that the one girl would have been burned had she lived in Salem in the 1600s; however, there is also the suggestion of a Homeric tale as the three girls act as Sirens to the adolescent male:"now she was showing them how to do it, walk slow and hold yourself straight."  Her straps are off her shoulder seductively, and

there was nothing between the top of the suit and the top of her head except just her, this clean bare plane of the top of her chest down from the shoulder bones like a dented sheet of metal tilted in the light.  I mean, it was more than pretty.

But, Sammy comments that when Queenie's white shoulders "dawn" on the shoppers, they 

jerk, or hop, or hiccup, but their eyes snapped back to their own baskets and they pushed.

Sammy's eyes do not snap back; instead, he is smitten with Queenie as he is seduced by her beauty: "Really, I thought that was so cute" he remarks as she pulls a dollar bill from the top of her bathing suit.  When Sammy is completely smitten and hopes "they'll stop and watch me, their unsuspected hero," the girls leave the store.  But, Sammy has integrity; he says,

But it seems to me that once you begin a gesture it's fatal not to go through with it.

And, he does, punching the "No Sale" and leaving.  Despite Updike's conviction that the heroic gesture is often meaningless and usually arising from selfish rather than unselfish motives, Sammy, at least, is true to his convictions.  Rather naive, maybe, but morally ambitious.  For these characteristics, he is admirable and the message of "A&P" is that sometimes the act itself is noble, regardless of the consequences. Sammy is a true existential hero.

In the end of Fahrenheit 451 who tries to run Montag over and why?

At the end of the book, Montag is on the run, escaping through a maze of city streets in the dark.  The hound is after him, the authorities are after him, and he is desperate to get away and find a safe haven.  The hound has already stung his leg, so his movements are stiff and labored; at one point, he stumbles across the street, trying to move faster as his leg throbs with pain.  It is then that a car full of teenagers careens into the street, sees Montag, and in the spirit of having a good time, they try to hit him with their car in some sort of bizarre dare.

This might seem like a very bizarre thing to do--what kids in their right minds would actually purposefully try to hit someone in by running them over in a car just for a dare?  To answer this, we need to turn back to some of the things that Clarisse told Montag about teenagers and their habits and activities.  She mentions that she doesn't fit in with kids her age, and describes some of their behaviors, and how they

"can't do anything but...bully people around...or go out in the cars and race on the streets, trying to see how close you can get to lampposts...I'm afraid of children my own age.  They kill each other."

Kids in Montag's society are violent, and all about the thrill and dare of adventure.  It is a way to blow off steam, to forget their miseries, and the cops, government, and parents all encourage the behavior and discourage any sort of punishment for it.  So, a car full of teenagers, out for a thrill ride, almost kill Montag.  He is only saved because he tripped and fell down; this puts him out of the way long enough for the car to miss him.  I hope that those thoughts helped; good luck!

BUYERS ALWAYS PREFER LOWER PRICES TO HIGHER PRICES .DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER.DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH...

answer as selected by question asker.

As long as you say "all other things being equal" I would agree with this statement.

In other words, there are some things that could make a buyer prefer a higher price.  The main thing that could do this would be if the good or service that has the higher price is better (either truly better or just in the buyer's perception) than the one with the lower price.

It has been shown that goods that are priced lower than competing goods can, at times, be perceived as inferior.  In this case, the more expensive good will be preferred.  (So economically speaking there is higher demand for that good or service.)

However, if the goods are perceived as equal in quality, the statement should hold.

I do not believe that this is connected to price ceilings.  Price ceilings are artificial caps put on prices and they simply make it so there are no choices that are more expensive than the level of the cap.

How does Beowulf explore the theme of good vs. evil?

Good versus evil is a common theme in Beowulf. Beowulf represents good and the three monsters represent evil.   Beowulf is the larger than life hero who kills/conquers the evil Grendel, Grendel’s mother and the dragon. 

Beowulf is a mighty warrior from the land of the Geats.  He has heard of the terrible monster, Grendel, and leaves his homeland to help Hrothgar, the lord of the Danes. He is courageous, bold and stronger than any of Hrothgar’s warriors.

Grendel is established as being evil because he is a descendant of Cain, the first murderer.  He terrorizes Herot for twelve years.  He attacks the Danes because of their merriment and joy.  The Danes mention God in their songs and this infuriates Grendel.

In Corrie ten Boom's book, The Hiding Place, why does Corrie's father refuse to accept the German soldier's offer to let him go?

Casper ten Boom was a remarkable man. His whole being was caught up in doing the will of God at all times. Even in his watch shop he would pray for direction on repairing a particular timepiece. He led his family in daily Bible reading and devotions. When the war began, he took in the Jews because he understood that they are God's chosen ones and that God's law is higher than man's.

When he was arrested at age 84, along with his four children and a grandchild, he submitted to the authority of the Nazis, but never denied his God. When one of the Nazi soldiers asked him what the Bible said about obeying the government, Casper replied with scripture: Fear God and honor the king.

The chief interrogator at the the Hague offered Caspar a way out, but Casper ten Boom answered according to his faith:

The Gestapo chief leaned forward, "I'd like to send you home, old fellow," he said, "I'll take your words that you won't cause any more trouble.

I could not see Father's face, only the erect carriage if his shoulders and the halo of white hair above them. But I heard his answer.

"If I go home today," he said evenly and clearly, "tomorrow I will open my door again to any man in need who knocks."

Casper ten Boom's faith was evident in every action of his life, even though in the end, it cost him his own. Casper ten Boom died in prison only ten days after his arrest.

Compare and contrast Keyne's and Friedman's theories against each other.I want to know which theory should the Federal Government follow during the...

Keynesianism and Monetarism (Friedman's theory) are completely opposed to one another.

Keynes argued that government needed to stimulate aggregate demand in order to end a recession.  He advocated increased government spending as the best way to do this (along with tax cuts).

Friedman argues that fiscal policy like Keynes advoactes is a bad idea.  To him, the only thing that the government should do is to increase the supply of money at an even rate.  He says that Keynesianism is more likely to cause inflation than to help the economy.

There's no way to know who's right and what the federal government should do.  Economists with much more education than I have disagree so there's no way I can know which is right.

In "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" is there any symbolism used?"Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" by Jack Finney I really appreciate the help.

There is a lot of symbolism in this short story. The man in the story has that will make him wealthy and well known. He has spent countless hours on this project and is just about to sit down and work it all out into a proposal.

His wife is leaving the house, alone, to go to a movie. She would really like to have him go with her, but he's intent on this work project.  So she leaves...and as she shuts the door, the breeze catches his paper...the only paper...that has all of his information written down on it and carries it out of the window. His efforts will be lost. His work will be for nothing. This symbolizes the fleeting nature of man's works.

The symbolism here is that life is brief and priorities must be established. He risks everything for this piece of paper.  What is this piece of paper if it costs him his love or his life?

She is alone, and he is alone. Each of them are doing different activities, but they each are alone.  This is a significant symbol in this story, because each human faces trials of fear and courage totally alone no matter who may be present. Every human must face death alone.

As a psychological story, the vertigo the man experiences when he sees the ground is quite intense. It symbolizes how his dream is slipping away and that he must maintain his balance in order to live. Once he grasps the paper and gets it between his teeth, he is unable to move. Again, paralyzed by fear, he is stuck.  This man is stuck in his life as a grocery boy, and he's probably one of those people who is afraid to make a move without everything being just right and totally perfect. This is a type of self-sabotage. Being out on the ledge symbolizes where he is in his life. He is unknown to the world, just another grocery clerk. But his desire is fame.

When he is trying desperately to return to his apartment, he is literally locked out of his own home. Unsafe and on a window-ledge he can see inside his home, but cannot get in. If he had gone out with his wife, he would not be home, but he would not be having a near-death experience either.

The yellow paper symbolizes desires and dreams that must be let go in order to have what really counts in life.  He does let this go the second time after what it almost cost him the first time.

In the first TWO paragraphs of Ch. 6 in The Scarlet Letter, how do all of the rhetorical and literary techniques create the passage's meaning?What...

Much of the description in these two paragraphs, like the rest of the book, is from Hawthorne's vantage, not any of the characters.  His description of Pearl serves to emphasize the exclusion of her from the community; Hester, rather than trying to integrate herself or her child back into the culture, "morbidly" goes the other way and dresses Pearl extravagantly -- which was actually forbidden in Puritan times -- but once a transgressor, why not go all the way?  Particularly this action emphasizes Hester's skill as a seamstress, which again serves to isolate her and Pearl from the larger culture.

Then there's the allusion to Adam and Eve, or rather Dimmesdale and Hester, being punished by exclusion from their environment.  Hester is literally ostracized; Dimmesdale suffers from guilt and is frequently described as "otherworldly;"  his sufferings keep him apart from the community, and infuriatingly keep the villagers thinking of his piety in his suffering! But Pearl, innocent, can remain in the Garden, the plaything of angels.  This brief description is actually a fascinating theme inversion -- much of the time in the book, the wilderness is considered to be the dwelling place of evil, the town, where the pious live; in this instance, the Garden is the abode of good and the Angels, and those driven out live among the evil and mortal.

Define culture and explain its effect on the personality of a child?

Here are a few points to consider:

1. All cultures are different and cultures have a profound influence on people. Culture shapes their thoughts, dream, logic and so on.

2. In light of point one, culture has a lot to do with the personality of a child. Culture educates a child in some of the basic aspects of life. What is acceptable, what is unacceptable, what is natural, what is unnatural, etc.

3. Culture also reprimands a child when he or she does not comply through various pressures and inducements.

4. I do not wish to imply that there are no other factors, such as the temperament of the child, but I want to emphasize the importance of culture.

For more reading on this topic, read Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman

How does Shakespeare portray the behaviour of men, regarding questions of power, relationship, and class?

Are you looking at a specific play or in general? I see that you are referencing Coriolanus...

Typically, Shakespeare's men reflect the times in which they were written: the Renaissance. Romeo and Paris from Romeo and Juliet were well-educated, wealthy, handsome, accomplished sword-fighters and well-spoken, as any good Renaissance man would be. The same goes for the men in Much Ado About Nothing, A MidSummer Night's Dream and Julius Caesar. But these were typical noble men, and represented the ideals not only of the culture in which Shakespeare wrote, but also the ideals of the cultures of the settings of the play.

Also, Shakespeare wrote strong female characters, and men often listened to them, as Coriolanus did in this play. Shakespeare lived during a time of a female ruler who often visited his theater and was a great patron of the theater arts. He was not about to annoy his biggest contributor by writing weak, simpering, female characters.

Often, when the male characters ignore the female characters advice, the male characters cause destruction, violence, the death of the innocents. You'll notice that Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's few male characters who listens to women's advice and lives and is able to make peace because of it. However, he does lose his own life because of betrayal. Macbeth listened to his wife, but she gave bad advice, and so he dies too.

Coriolanus doesn't seem to use his power unwisely, refusing to take bribes, or slander people to gain power. He does rely on his own pride though (the cause of his eventual downfall). He is also different from a Renaissance man in that he doesn't speak well for himself and nearly loses the political election. Like Cassius from Julius Caesar, Coriolanus finds how easy it is to manipulate the common people because of their lack of education. They are sheep, easily controlled by the right man, and Coriolanus is the right man.

According to Augustine, what is evil? What makes a desire inordinate?

According to St. Augustine, evil is the absence of good.  He says that evil is not a thing in itself, but rather a negative -- just the absence of good.

In Augustine's dialogue with Evodius, he introduces us to the concept of inordinate desires.  To him, these desires are the cause of all wrong-doing.  What makes a desire ordinate or inordinate is the object of that desire.

The object of an ordinate desire is something that can not be taken from you without your consent.  The object of inordinate desires are things that can be taken from you without your consent.

In Of Mice and Men, what did Carlson do with his luger? Why?

Carlson shot Candy's dog with his luger.  The dog was not only old, blind, and could barely walk, but the men in the bunkhouse kept complaining about how badly the dog smelled.  While Candy realized that the dog was well beyond its prime and was barely existing, he didn't have the heart to put the dog out of its misery.  He'd raised it since it was a pup, and Candy could not bring himself to shoot it.  Even after Carlson suggested that shooting the dog in the back of the head would be the kindest way to put the dog down, Candy still refused to do it himself.  He did, however, allow Carlson to do the deed.  This event foreshadows when George is faced with the decision to shoot Lennie to protect him from Curley's wrath and/or the repercussions of the law for killing Curley's wife, even if it was an accident.

In A Wrinkle in Time, how do the characters take on the problem?

The main issue of the story is that Dr. Alex Murray has mysteriously disappeared while working on a secret government project.  The mysterious Mrs. Whatsit arrives at the Murray's home on "a dark and stormy night" and tells the Murray family there is a such thing as a tesseract (or, a Wrinkle in Time, as the book is named for).

Meg and Charles Wallace, children of Dr. Murray, along with the help of their friend Calvin, tesseract throughout the universe to try to find their father.  Eventually, he's found on Camazotz, a planet ruled by a dark force referred to as IT.  Dr. Murray manages to tesseract out of the planet with Meg and Calvin, but Charles Wallace is left behind under the thrall of IT.  Meg uses the power of her love for her brother to save him, and they all tesseract back to Earth.

What is the meaning of the poem "A Man young and Old : XI. From Oedipus at Colonus"?

The meaning of "A Man Young And Old: XI. From Oedipus At Colonus" by William Butler Yeats is the speaker's lament of life. The poem is structured in four stanzas of triplets with an AAA BBB CCC etc. rhyme scheme. The first triplet stanza makes it clear that long life is not to be desired and that once a person grows old, the person's delight becomes longing for death. The second stanza plays off against the word "delight" but refers to the delights of fond memories, which, the speakers tells us, harbor the hidden realities of deaths, loss of hope (despair) and family estrangements etc. We are reminded that homeless wandering beggars and equally homeless and unloved children know the truth of what stanza two describes as being embodied in memories.

Stanza three contrasts stanzas one and two to a bride and bridegroom and their joyous, singing bridal party as the groom carries his bride through the dark lit only by torches and song, analogous of the looming, impending ideas brought forth in stanzas one and two. The speaker contrasts his personal celebration to their celebration saying that s/he celebrates the unreturned and silent kiss given to one who has died, making it clear that the same idea and feeling applies to one who dies young or in ripe old age. Yeats caps off this joyous sparkling poem (sarcasm there) by saying that ancient sages pronounce the best thing that could happen to a person is to never have been born; to never have breathed the air of life; never to have beheld the glories of day light. Yeats joins in the sentiment and says that, finding yourself alive, the next best thing is to enjoy the immediate moment and forget everyone as soon as you curtly and absolutely part from them--have no human bonds or affections: "a gay goodnight and quickly turn away."

To help explicate all this, I've included a paraphrase (it helped me sort through this, it might help you).

PARAPHRASE

Endure the length of life you are allotted and ask for no more;
Furthermore stop thinking of the joys of your youth now that you are wearied and aged;
You always have the recourse of longing for death when longing for other things proves vain.

The delightful treasures of memory,
Harbor the unspoken of death, despair, division, and entanglements of woe,
As that person there, wandering beggar, and these children here, god-hated, know too well.

Contrasting to this beggar and these children is the dancing throng at a wedding,
The bridegroom carries off his bride to their nuptial chamber through the night lit only by torches and song;
But my celebration is the silent kiss given when a life ends, whether a long or short life.

Ancient philosophers say that it is best to never have lived;
To never have breathed, to never have seen the light of day;
So I say that the second best thing, if once forced to be alive, is a happy "goodnight" parting and to quickly turn away while remaining unattached in love or compassion.

In "The Crucible" how does Proctor’s subsequent comment on Parris’ fiery sermons cause an outburst from Rev. Parris?

In Act One, Parris, Proctor, Giles and Putnam all fight and argue over numerous things--firewood, salaries, sermon topics, land boundaries, lawsuits and loyalties.  Parris himself reveals his sensitivity and insecurity in several areas.  First of all, he feels that people in the town don't like him, that they are always rising up against him and trying to halt his progress in the town.  Secondly, he feels like he isn't getting enough money or respect; he wants a larger salary, the deed to the church, and for all of the townspeople to respect him more.  So, when Proctor criticizes Parris's sermon topics as being "only hellfire and bloody damnation," it strikes a nerve.  Parris immediately jumps in to defend himself, stating that Proctor has no right to determine "what is good" for him to hear in sermons, and that Proctor "may tell that to [his] followers."  In this, we see how sensitive Parris is to criticism, and that he feels like Proctor, and others, are gathering parties of opposition against him.

Reverend Parris is very ready to have "outbursts" because he is highly insecure about his position in the town, and feels himself the victim of unjust practices and opinions.  As a result, he wastes no opportunity to voice his victimized position in society, to make sure that everyone knows his position.  I hope that those thoughts helped a bit; good luck!

Pearl is described as a "lovely and immortal flower" --what does this mean, and what is its significance? What is the author's intent of using this...

I think that Pearl is described as a flower so that Hawthorne can talk about her coming out of the "rank luxuriance" of her mother's sin.  The metaphor here reminds me of a flower growing out of manure being used for fertilizer.  So it's a real statement about something good coming from something very bad.

But why "immortal?"  That's a harder question.

To me, we have to ask what is immortal about Pearl.  Obviously, her body is not -- she is mortal.  So it must be something else.  I think that what is immortal is her importance to her mother and (maybe) her intelligence and insight.

If you think about the rest of the book, you can see that Pearl is very important to her mother because she seems to help her emotionally (part of this help comes by way of the comments she makes about the adults -- sort of pushing Hester to see the truth about various things).

So I think that overall the metaphor means that out of Hester's sin has come something that is beautiful, but also something that will be eternally important to her because it will help her redeem herself.

Can anyone help me with this problem?An oil fired power station burns three grades of oil: grade A, grade B and grade C. The efficiency with which...

WHAT WE KNOW:

Just to see for element X, we know that we COULD get the (12 hrs/day times 200 tons of element X needed) 2400 tons of element X by buying 10,000 t(ons) of A (Grade A) oil (10,000t · .2t per t of A), plus 1000t of B (1000t · .1t per t of B), plus 1000t of C (1000t · .3t per t of C). This would give us 2000t from A, 100t from B, and 300t from C. It would cost us (10000t · £60/t) + (1000t · £80/t) + (1000t · £70/t) a total of (600,000 + 80,000. + 70,000) = £750,000. We do end up with exactly the 3600t of element Z, but we have 4500t of element Y, over by quite a bit from the 2100t needed.

CHECK FOR REASONABLENESS:

Would all A be best? All B? All C? We can see that B is the more expensive per ton and less productive than A for every element. We would only buy B if A is not available, hence we can eliminate B from consideration.

Let A = tons of Grade A oil, and C = tons of Grade C oil. From the example, we can derive:

Element X: 2400t = .2A + .3C, or 4800t = .4A + .6C, or 7200 = .6A + .9C
Element Y: 2100t = .4A + .2C, or 4200t = .8A + .4C

Element Z: 3600t = .3A + .4C, or 7200 = .6A + .8C

Graphing the above three lines, we could find either one, two, or three points of intersection. There could be none, or an infinite amount as well, which for a production problem such as this would not occur, since we have limits of 0≤A and C, and there is not a multiple of one equation.

Solving for Elements X & Y:

4800t = .4A + .6C

-(2100t = .4A + .2C)

2700t = + .4C, and dividing both sides by .4, we get 6750t needed of Grade C.

Substituting to find A, we get

2100 = .4A + .2·6750

2100 = .4A + 1350

750 = .4A, and 1875 = A

1st possible solution set: (A, C) = 1875t, 6750t

Cost is (1875t ∙ £60/t) + (6750t ∙ £70/t) = £585,000

Solving for Elements X & Z:

7200 = .6A + .9C

-(7200 = .6A + .8C)

0 = .1C, and C=0.

Substituting to find C, we get from Element X:

2400 = .2A + .3(0), or just 2400 = .2A, dividing both sides by .2, we get A = 12000.

2nd possible solution set: (A, C) = 12000t, 0t

Cost is (12000t ∙ £60/t) + (0t ∙ £70/t) = £720,000

Solving for Elements Y & Z:

4200 = .8A + .4C

-(3600 = .3A + .4C)

600 = .5A, and with dividing both sides by .5, we get A = 1200

Substituting to find C, we get from Element Z:

3600 = .3(1200) + .4C

3600 = 360 + .4C, subtract 360 from both sides,

3240 = .4C, and dividing both side by .4, we get C = 8100.

3rd possible solution set: (A, C) = 1200t, 8100t.

Cost is (1200t ∙ £60/t) + (8100t ∙ £70/t) = £574,200

The best solution is the last one. Remember, in a system of linear inequalities, the minimums or maximums occur at the intersections.

Can studying trees be helpful in providing information about climate from the past? If so, then how?

Yes, it could be helpful to study tree rings, because they are giving us pieces of info about not only the past climate , but also the changes happened throughout ages. This kind of information is given by the carbon and oxygen isotopes found in tree rings.

It's important to take the study but to pay attention to the factors that are influencing the size of trees analyzed. For example, boreal forest has small size trees, but incredibly old. So a diameter of maximum 20cm could mean that the tree is about 400 years. But not only the location of the forest is an important  growth factor, also the place occupied by the tree within the forest is important , too, because, in the same area, substances (water, nutrients) essential for growth and life of the tree, may vary.

Give me the full meaning of separation according to Forster in his "A passage to India" and the different kind of separation which the novel has.I...

The element of separation takes on different forms in Forster's work.  There is the separation of Indians from the British in terms of treatment and opportunity.  At the same time, there is a theme of separation within the British, themselves.  Specifically, there are those British like Fielding, who believe in working with the Indians in making a better life for many, and those like most of the other Indians, Rony or McBride or any of the British who regularly attend "the club," that seek to control the Indians and strive for dominance in the establishment of personal superiority as "little gods."  The theme of emotional separation can be seen in the withering relationship of Adela and Rony, as well as Fielding and Aziz.  This theme is enhanced in a more mortal sense with Mrs. Moore and Professor Godbole, who seem to be separated from the temporal realm and entering one of greater eternity.  I would think that the Marabar Caves themselves, an area where only the equality of "Boum" can be experienced, is separated from the rest of the world, itself.  At some level, each character in the work endures some type of separation, which can be a statement in its own right about the nature of Colonial rule and life.

What is Huck's original opinion of slavery, and how does it change throughout the novel?Please cite evidence. Thank you in advance for your help!

In my opinion, Huck's opinion of slavery doesn't really change over the course of the novel.  He is not, in general, opposed to slavery at the begninning and he's really not opposed to it at the end either.  Throughout, though, he seems to make an exception for Jim.

When Huck meets Jim on the island in Chapter 8, he promises not to tell on him even though that will make people despise him.  But he doesn't say anything about not liking slavery.  And before that, in Chapter 2, he talks about how Jim was almost "ruined as a servant" because he got stuck up after he thought he was bewitched.  None of this really sounds anti-slavery.

At the end of the book, Huck wants to free Jim, but he also seems to think that it's wrong.  He is surprised when Tom is going to help him free Jim:

Well, I let go all holts then, like I was shot. It was the most astonishing speech I ever heard -- and I'm bound to say Tom Sawyer fell considerable in my estimation. Only I couldn't believe it. Tom Sawyer a nigger-stealer!

He wants Jim to be free, but doesn't seem to see it as an issue of slavery per se being wrong

Once I said to myself it would be a thousand times better for Jim to be a slave at home where his family was, as long as he'd got to be a slave...

You would think he wouldn't put it this way if he thought slavery  were completely immoral in every case.

And he doesn't seem to have any problem with the fact that other blacks are slaves -- it's just part of life.

So I'd say his opinion doesn't change -- he's always okay with slavery, but wants Jim free, presumably because Huck is "enlightened" enough to like individual blacks and want them to be free.