How can a corporation be seen as responsible?

I assume that you are asking what a company can do to make
people feel that it is a socially responsible firm.  If so, the main thing it can do is
to act in ways that are beneficial to society as a whole even if (or especially if) they
are not in the immediate best interests of the company.

An
example of this might be Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart has adopted a number of policies in recent
years that are meant to reduce the impact that it has on the environment.  It has, for
example, been pushing its suppliers to reduce the amount of packaging that they use.  It
has also been taking steps to reduce the amount of fuel that is used by its huge fleet
of trucks.

Actions like this make a company look much more
responsible because it makes the company look as if it cares about something over than
pure profit.  (Of course, this can end up helping the company if people buy more from it
due to its improved image.)

whats a persasive essay look likeno

There is a lot to agree with in the above
answer:

1.  Yes, the intro needs to have a opening sentence
that grabs the reader's attention followed by a strong thesis, generally written in one
sentence stating your three areas of support (For example:  The three principal reasons
that I support some candidate is that she has a proven track record of addressing her
constituents' concerns; she supports many of the concerns that I personally have; she
has never been reprimanded by her governing body in her entire professional career.).
 This is the then followed by a lead in sentence that makes the reader want to continue
to read!

2.  Yes, you need proof.  So for each body
paragraph (three total), you should take each area of support and well, support it!
 Prove that the candidate addresses her constituents' concerns in Body #1; prove that
she supports personal concerns in Body #2; and prove that she has never been reprimanded
in Body #3.

3.  Yes, use powerful and power-filled words.
 Don't use "25 cent" words when you can use something more meaningful  Don't said "said"
if you can use "declared."  Don't use "went" if you can use
"traveled."

4.  Now here is where I part ways with above
response.  I would NEVER show the other side's concern.  Next thing you know....you
proved their point!

5.  Yes, reiterate your thesis.  And
close with a nice "ribbon" on top your completed
package.

Also...remember to start each body paragraph and
the conclusion with a transitional phrase or word.

Good
practice - I know, practice is a dirty word - is to try to write from the opposing side.
 If you can prove a point that you are AGAINST, you are sure to be able to prove one you
FAVOR!

Good luck!

From Shakespeare's Hamlet, could someone give me an example of a semantic shift?

A "semantic shift" is the same as a "semantic change." In
terms of linguistics, it appears that it is simply a "shift" in the meaning of a word
relative to the time it is used. Some words in Hamlet, by William
Shakespeare, for example, may have been used one way in the past, but are used very
differently today, or not at all. E.g., in a more modern context, for example, "bad"
used to mean "awful," but with the advent of slang, and Michael Jackson's song of the
same name, "bad" came to mean "cool" or "tough." This is one of many reasons that the
English language is so difficult to understand and/or learn. What we say is not always
what we mean.

In terms of writing of the past, what was
said then is not always perceived today in the context of how it was used in days gone
by. It is often easier to understand a word when we can look at its etymological
development: the history, meaning and "shifts" a word has gone
through.

As an example, looking at etymologies, we can
understand from what language a word evolved, or how it was created in the first place.
Look at the word " href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=escape">escape." It comes
from the old French, around 1300.  This is its etymology or semantic
history:

readability="14">

c.1300, from O.N.Fr.
escaper, O.Fr. eschaper (12c., Mod.Fr.
échapper), from V.L. excappare, lit
[literally], "get out of one's cape, leave a pursuer with just one's cape,
...."

The idea was that if
two men were fighting, one might grab the other by his cape, whereby the man captured
needed only to release the clasp of his cape and he was free, while his attacker held
only a cape in his hands. Etymologies can be fascinating. The growth of and change in
words is also seen in "semantic shifts." In Hans Heinrich Hock's 1986
publication, Principles of historical linguistics (Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter), he states:

readability="8">

historical linguistics cannot ignore semantic
change. For unless we can relate words such as Old English hlāf
‘bread’ and New English loaf not only phonetically but
also semantically, it is impossible to trace many historical
developments....

In looking
at Hamlet, we are faced also with "the historical development of
words." In the context of Shakespearean English, we often find it difficult to
understand unless we alter the order of the words, or look into meanings of words that
are considered archaic today.

As an
example, in Act Three, scene one, in Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" speech, we
find a word that is used differently then than it is today. Hamlet
says,

...When
we have shuffled off this mortal coil...
(III.i.74)

This literally
means, "after we have cast away the ' href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hurly+burly">hurly burly' or
confusion of our mortal lives." Coil is used in a much different manner in modern
speech. In Hamlet, "mortal coil" means "life," but when we speak of
coils today, there is no such connection. Today, href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coil">coil used as a noun
means something tightly wound, like a Slinky:

readability="5">

"a connected series of spirals or rings into
which a rope or the like is
wound..."

Whereas an
Elizabethan audience would understand the language, so many years later, it is lost to a
modern audience. This is also why comic relief used in Shakespeare's plays is often not
as amusing to a modern audience, or why allusions made during that era are not timely or
effective today. It is because of the separation of time, and the semantic
shift, that the way in which words are used today is different than in the
past.

As another example, in the same speech, Hamlet refers
to "despised love" which we would believe to mean "hated" love, however in translation
today, it means "unrequited" or unreturned love. (79)

Is there any other evidence relating to Jem's maturation in To Kill a Mockingbird besides Jem urging Scout to stop antagonizing Aunt Alexandria?

Like sister Scout, Jem also matures during the time frame
that encompasses To Kill a Mockingbird. One of his first learning
experiences came when the children's secret knothole was cemented by Boo's brother. Mr.
Radley told Jem that he enclosed the knothole because the tree was dying; Atticus
explained that the tree was fine, and Jem realized for himself that Radley had lied. He
had closed off the hiding place so Boo could no longer communicate with his young
neighbors.

Jem grew up a bit more following the death of
Mrs. Dubose, and took another big leap when he recognized the injustice of the jury's
verdict against Tom Robinson, declaring that "they oughta do away with juries." He
became upset later when Scout mentioned Miss Gates' conversation at the courthouse,
telling Scout angrily that "I never wanta hear about that courthouse again, ever, ever,
you hear me?" But perhaps the most important sign of Jem's growing maturity came when he
first entered the seventh grade: Now a high schooler, he went out for the football team
(but he was so small that he was only used as a water boy).

Does Holden's description of how he would deal with the “glove thief” support his pacifism, or is he just “yellow” in The Catcher in the Rye?

I think that Holden might be "yellow" in this instance. 
There is much to indicate that Holden contradicts himself so much that he lacks the
moral certainty and fortitude to effectively embrace pacifism.  Yet, even if this is put
aside and we take a leap to presume that Holden is a pacifist, his analysis about how he
would not effectively confront the glove thief is not rooted in a set of pacifist
philosophical beliefs.  Rather, he simply accepts the fact that he is not able to follow
through on his desire for retribution.  He admits to being "yellow," but it might also
be reflective of the lack of direction and focus in Holden's value set and his life. 
There is much in way of misdirection in Holden and his inability to confront the glove
thief is a part of it.  This same inconsistency is evident in his accepting of the
prostitute, even though he has previously claimed that "sex should be in a
relationship."  It is also evident in his inability to follow through with being in the
prostitute.  The emotional impotence of action in Holden's state of being in the world
is what defines Holden and it is evident in this moment with the glove
thief.

Is the novel Lord of the Flies pessimistic about the human capacity of good?

Kind of. I think Golding was studying the capacity of
humans to function together or do good without the covering of
civilization.

We see in the beginning, when Ralph is
elected chief and Piggy (one of the symbols of civilization) is there to advise him that
there is relative peace on the island. While things are not perfect, on the whole the
boys get along and at times are even rather caring to each
other.

However, when civilization starts falling away (Jack
leaves, his tribe steals Piggy's glasses, they kill Piggy and Simon) humanity also falls
away and the boys revert to the pre-civilized era of the
'savage'.

Now, when civilization (which is what separates
us from the animals) is gone...the behaviors associated with civilization also
disappear. Kindness, sharing, looking out for the needy in society, and similar
characteristics of a "civilized" society leave and yes...the author definatly expresses
doubt that humans capacity for good can exist under these
conditions.

In short, I believe that Golding is saying that
government and societal order are essential for humans to be all they can be, but
without the protection of civilization humans do not know how to elevate the human
condition.

At what points is the curve y=x^1/3*(x+3)^(2/3) concave up and concave down.?

The function we have is
y=x^(1/3)*(x+3)^(2/3).

This function is concave up when it
stops decreasing and starts to increase instead. It is concave down in the opposite
scenario when the function is no longer increasing but starts to
decrease.

y=x^(1/3)*(x+3)^(2/3)

y'
= [x^(1/3)]'*(x+3)^(2/3) + x^(1/3)*[(x+3)^(2/3)]'

y' =
(1/3)*x^(-2/3)*(x+3)^(2/3) + x^(1/3)*(2/3)*(x+3)^(-1/3)

y'
= (1/3)*[(x+3)/x]^(2/3) + (2/3)*[x/(x + 3)]^(1/3)

y' =
[(1/3)*(x+3) + (2/3)*x]/x^(2/3)*(x + 3)^(1/3)

y' = (x +
1)/x^(2/3)*(x + 3)^(1/3)

We see that there is only one
point of inflection which is where the function stops increasing or
decreasing.

The point of inflection is at x =
-1.

Here, the function is increasing on the right till x =
0, where the slope becomes infinity and decreasing on the left from x =
-3.

The curve is concave up in the region (-3
, 0). It is not concave down anywhere.