The Inspectors character Essay Example for Free

The Inspectors character Essay In the stage diagram I have tried to show this, and all the movements of the characters. I thought from the actual text of the play, and in the way the plays stage directions are written, that the Inspector is trying to ease into the room so not focus attention on to himself, so it is a surprise for the characters and they dont notice hes there and carry on talking. As far as I can see Gerald is trying to persuade Sheila into believing him, and Sheila is listening, so Gerald is walking forward and Sheila walking backwards. Later in the dialogue Sheilas character becomes more dominating telling Gerald that its not worth it and puts pressure on Gerald. At this point the movements would be reversed Sheila walking forward in control and Gerald retreating away. When the Inspector says Well they turn round to face him; I did this to emphasise the characters shock at the entrance. The Inspectors character will come in slowly. Like Priestlys original stage directions the door will open slowly revealing the Inspector standing in shadow. He will say, Well just as Sheila finishes her dialogue. Then again at the beginning of Act Two he will move forwards and say well. The Inspector will move towards the characters keeping eye contact with Gerald. I think this is a very dramatic entrance and the lighting should reflect this in its dramatic effect. When Gerald and Sheila are talking the lighting should be slightly dim but not dark. As they are talking the lighting should dim until the characters are barely visible. At this point a spotlight should focus on the door at the back of the stage. Then the door should open slowly to show the Inspector in silhouette. He should then say well just as the curtain drops to keep the audience guessing as to who was in the doorway. When the curtain rises again at the beginning of act two the stage should be brightly lit with the door still fully open and the Inspector should be still in shadow until he walks into the light and towards Gerald to say well again. This entrance as a whole has a lot of dramatic impact because it is the Inspector walking in on Gerald admitting to Sheila about Eva Smith or Daisy Renton. In that sense it is also a key point in the play as another person is confessing and another piece of the puzzle of Eva Smith is put into place. The dialogue just before, and immediately after emphasises the dramatic impact of this entrance. After having this conversation with Sheila, Gerald says You dont, neither of us does. So for gods sake dont say anything to the Inspector. To the audience this seems ironic, because Gerald is trying to keep something away from the Inspector, that the Inspector already knows. Later on Sheila says, (rather hysterically) Why you fool he knows. Of course he knows and I hate to think how much he knows that we dont yet. Youll see youll see. This again makes an impact because Sheila is telling Gerald that hes not going to be able to keep anything away from the Inspector and showing him where things stand. Gerald is hoping the Inspector doesnt know anything and hasnt realised, but Sheila has understood he knows and is pulling him back down to earth. This is reflected in the stage directions, which say, she looks at him almost in triumph. He looks crushed. Another sentence that adds enormously to the dramatic impact of this entrance is when the Inspector says well? at the end of Act One and beginning of Act Two. This adds to the dramatic tension because it is the introduction of the Inspector to this scene, and because Geralds secret has been heard, or has it? The audience isnt sure whether the Inspector heard what was said or how long he has been standing there. The audiences attention has been on Gerald and Sheilas conversation so they have no idea about the Inspector this adds more tension. At the beginning of Act Two the Inspector says Well? again but this time it seems more directed as if now he is talking to Gerald personally.

Investigating how the concentration of reactants affects the rate of re

Investigating how the concentration of reactants affects the rate of reaction Chemistry Coursework This experiment is aimed at investigating how the concentration of reactants affects the rate of reaction: The reaction between hydrochloric acid and magnesium will be used to investigate how different concentrations of the acid affect the rate of reaction. The gas produced from the reaction will be measured and used to display the average rate of reaction. The rate of reaction is a measure of how fast a reaction is going and how long it takes to complete. This rate is found by measuring the amount of a reactant used up per unit of time or the amount of a product produced per unit of time. For this reaction, the product will be measured, as this substance is the easiest and most accurate to measure. Scientific Knowledge: A reaction can be stimulated to go faster or slower by varying the temperature, the concentration of reactant and the surface area. For the magnesium and acid particles to react together, they must: i) Collide with each other ii) Have enough energy in the collision. 1) The particles in the liquid move around continually. Above, an acid particle is about to collide with a magnesium atom. 2) If the collision has enough energy, a reaction takes place. Magnesium chloride and hydrogen will be formed. 3) If the collision does not have enough energy, no reaction occurs and the acid particle will bounce away again. Particles need to collide with enough velocity so that they react. During a chemical reaction, the particles have to collide with enough energy to first break the bonds and then to form the new bonds and the rearranged electrons, so some of the particles do not have enough energy to react when... ...make a reaction take place. (The results from the second experiment were used in order to get a more accurate data collection.) Evaluation: For future experiments, it must be noted that the gas needs to be removed from gas syringe after each test, as this was one of the problems during the investigation. If the excess gas is not removed, the experiment begins and the results are completely out of range. It was felt that this experiment may have been easier with the aid of three people, as this would mean that there were not so many activities fro each person to record or read. In order to get a more accurate result, having recorded the measurements from the experiment, the results should have been averaged, instead of using only one set. For a full conclusion to be confirmed, more tests should have been carried out to provide enough evidence to support the argument.

Should the Uk Leave the Eu?

Nikolai Cremo Understanding the European Union Professor Eiko Thielemann October 14th, 2012 Should the UK remain a member of the European Union? The issue of whether or not the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union has been debated heavily over the past decade, with the debate heating up even more from the current European Sovereign Debt Crisis. Recent polls of the UK population showed that around half of the UK’s citizens would vote to pull out of the EU if it went to referendum.However, after all of the economic, political, and social advantages of being a member of the EU are considered, it remains clear that leaving the EU is not in the UK’s best interest. Economically, it does not make sense for the UK to leave the world’s largest trade block considering the EU buys fifty percent of the UK’s exports, at a time when the UK’s current account deficit is at one of its all-time highs.Additionally, the UK would lose its allure a s being a hotspot for Foreign Direct Investment, as they would no longer give companies access to the single market, further contributing to the UK’s growing imbalance of payments. Ultimately this could be detrimental to the value of the British pound, and even worse, cause the UK to lose its position as the financial center of Europe. The UK giving up its decision-making influence in the EU would not likely result in the UK seeing trade polices pass that make this debated exit any easier.From a social perspective the citizens of the UK would lose the highly valued privilege to seamlessly travel, attend school, live, and retire anywhere throughout the EU. After all of these factors are made clear, especially the negative financial factors, the economic impact of a UK exit would triumph over any negative sentiment associated with staying a member of the EU. The most powerful factor marrying the UK to the EU is the undeniable economic dependence the UK has on the world’s largest trading block.The fifty percent of UK exports that goes to the countries of the EU would become much less competitive with trade barriers, which would then raise the necessity for many UK exporters to either lower their prices, or decrease their output to meet the fallen demand of their goods. Additionally, due to the nature of the goods the UK trades with its EU partners, it would not easily substitute this trade with non-EU countries (Oxford 24).According to simple economic theory, this would ultimately decrease the amount of money the UK receives for its exports, as the amount the tariff increases the price of UK goods will ultimately have to be born by the UK company exporting it, and any price increase not born by the UK company will lead to a decrease in exports demanded by the EU. Therefore, a major piece of the British economy would face severe hardship on the basis of the UK not being a member of the free trade block. Another area of the UK’s economy that wo uld be adversely affected by the removal of the EU free trade block is Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the UK.The UK is seen as many non-EU countries as the gateway to European market penetration, and this view would ultimately change if the UK left the EU. FDI has an important role in the UK economy, as it has been a consistent source of job growth of 50,000-60,000 jobs a year, while providing protection to another 40,000 jobs each year (Oxford 43). In addition to creating jobs, FDI is known to fuel innovation and competition, as it incorporates the advances in technologies that have been proved successful in other countries.By leaving the EU, the FDI of non-EU countries would relocate their base of operations to European markets to a country within the EU, and out of the UK, and all further FDI intended to reap the gains of the largest trading block would more than likely invest in an EU country. This not only inhibits job growth directly, but also widens the gap of the UKâ₠¬â„¢s balance of payments, which would have to either be filled through issuing more currency (inflation), a devaluation of the currency.Similar to notion that the UK would lose out on FDI, the UK’s position as the financial center of Europe would be inherently weakened by the UK being outside the EU. It is clear that many countries and companies are invested in the UK because of its links to EU, where they have access to 500 million consumers. For starters, companies would move to other financial powerhouses of Europe such as Frankfurt or Brussels, in order to avoid EU tariffs and conform to EU regulations (Oxford 48).Secondly, the EU would implement programs to shift the European financial center to another financial center within their union such Frankfurt or Brussels. Any measures that the UK could take to prevent this would certainly be their best interest, as financial services makes up ten percent of their GDP. Additionally, the portfolio investments that the UK receiv es from being the financial center of Europe would flow out of the country at the same rate as London loses its position as the financial center, and these currently represent a ? 5 billion surplus to the UK balance of payments (Open Europe. This is another crucial piece of the balance of payments within the UK, and would lead to the aforementioned devaluation of the British pound, or inflation, or a combination of both to balance out trade deficit of the country. While the strongest benefits of staying in the EU stem from economic benefits, the political benefits of an influential member of the union are not to be overlooked.Given that UK is in a four way tie of having the highest number of votes in the Council under the Nice Treaty, and their voting power wil be sustained by having the third largest population in the EU once the Libson Treaty comes into effect in late 2014 (Hixx 65). This gives the UK a strong position to influence the long-term goals of the Council, where they wi ll be able to seek compromises with other EU states to pursue legislation that is in the UK’s best interest, and to project the UK’s interests (Open Europe).While if they were outside of the EU, they would not have any ability to directly influence the policies of the EU that have helped them in the past. For example, Tony Blair using his influence in the European Council to launch the Libson Agenda for economic reform, is a example of British intervention that not only benefited the UK, but the entire EU as well (Lake). Additionally, being tied for the second highest number of MEPs in the European Parliament (EP), the UK has an influential role on all of the decisions that go through the EP.Despite the fact the social benefits of EU membership are often overshadowed by the economic and political aspects, the loss of these benefits would negatively impair the freedom of the UK people, and negatively impact UK businesses. The free movement of UK citizens throughout the EU to travel, to attend school, live, and retire. Businesses do not only benefit by having to follow one set of regulations, but also benefit from having a larger source of potential employees to chose from.The EU employment rate in the UK is 3. 3%, while they make 4. 5% of the labor force, which shows that EU citizens have a positive impact on UK GDP (Oxford 34). If the UK were to leave the EU, there is a great possibility that many of the EU workers employed in highly skilled areas that are crucial to the UK economy, such as financial services, would relocate back inside the EU. This again would be another risk of severely impairing the bedrock of the UK economy, and shifting the financial center of Europe outside the UK.Based upon these economic, political, and social advantages of EU membership, it is clear that it is in the UK’s best interest to remain an active member in the EU. The direction of the EU is at another major crossroad as countries pull together to solve th e continents’ Sovereign Debt Crisis. The stance that the UK takes at these crossroads, as the union’s third largest country, is paramount not only to UK’s economic and political prosperity today, but to how UK is seen as a political force and financial hub in the long-term.The UK’s decision to abandon their economic and political partners has strong consequences now while the EU is in a time of hardship, and these consequences will only increase as the EU rises from this crisis. The failure of the UK to invest in their relationship with their European partners has a high probability to be detrimental to the economic wellbeing of the country, especially as these less developed countries are viewed as sources of future growth to the world financial markets.Thus, the British must adopt a more long-term view on their relationship with the EU, a view that they failed to see when declined to partake in the creation of EU by declining Treaties of Paris and Rome (George 32). I’ll conclude with a saying of the philosopher Santayana, which has been noted as a universal truth of investing by father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, that the UK should be reminded of before they further debate if they should opt out of the European integration yet again: â€Å"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. † Works Cited Oxford Economics, ed.An Indispensable Relationship: Economic Linkages between the UK and the Rest of the European Union. Rep. London: Business for New Europe, 2009. Print. Booth, Stephen, Christopher Howarth, Matts Persson, and Vincenzo Scarpetta. CONTINENTAL SHIFT: Safeguarding the UK’s Financial Trade in a Changing Europe. Rep. London: Open Europe, 2011. Print. Lake, Michael. Communicating the Lisbon Strategy – a Civic Challenge. Rep. N. p. : n. p. , 2006. Print. George, Stephen. â€Å"The Background: Britain and Europe, 1945-1973. †Ã‚  An Awkward Partner: Britain in the Eur opean Community. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. N. pag. Print.

An Overview of Game Theory in Sociology

Game theory is a theory of social interaction, which attempts to explain the interaction people have with one another. As the name of the theory suggests, game theory sees human interaction as just that: a game. John Nash, the mathematician who was featured in the movie A Beautiful Mind is one of the inventors of game theory along with mathematician John von Neumann. How Was Game Theory Developed? Game theory was originally an economic and mathematical theory that predicted that human interaction had the characteristics of a game, including strategies, winners and losers, rewards and punishment, and profits and cost. It was initially developed to understand a large variety of economic behaviors, including behavior of firms, markets, and consumers. The use of the game theory has since expanded in the social sciences and has been applied to political, sociological, and psychological behaviors as well. Game theory was first used to describe and model how human populations behave. Some scholars believe that they can actually predict how actual human populations will behave when confronted with situations analogous to the game being studied. This particular view of game theory has been criticized because the assumptions made by the game theorists are often violated. For example, they assume that players always act in a way to directly maximize their wins, when in reality this is not always true. Altruistic and philanthropic behavior would not fit this model. Example of Game Theory We can use the interaction of asking someone out for a date as a simple example of game theory and how there are game-like aspects involved. If you are asking someone out on a date, you will probably have some kind of strategy to â€Å"win† (having the other person agree to go out with you) and â€Å"get rewarded† (have a good time) at a minimal â€Å"cost† to you (you don’t want to spend a large amount of money on the date or do not want to have an unpleasant interaction on the date). Elements of a Game There are three main elements of a game: The playersThe strategies of each playerThe consequences (payoffs) for each player for every possible profile of strategy choices of all players Types of Games There are several different kinds of games that are studies using game theory: Zero-sum game: The players’ interests are in direct conflict with one another. For example, in football, one team wins and the other team loses. If a win equals 1 and a loss equals -1, the sum is zero.Non-zero sum game: The players’ interests are not always in direct conflict, so that there are opportunities for both to gain. For example, when both players choose â€Å"don’t confess† in Prisoner’s Dilemma (see below).Simultaneous move games: Players choose actions simultaneously. For example, in the Prisoner’s Dilemma (see below), each player must anticipate what their opponent is doing at that moment, recognizing that the opponent is doing the same.Sequential move games: Players choose their actions in a particular sequence. For example, in chess or in bargaining/negotiating situations, the player must look ahead in order to know what action to choose now.One-shot games: The play of the game occurs only once. Here, the players are likely to not know much about each other. For example, tipping a waiter on your vacation.Repeated games: The play of the game is repeated with the same players. Prisoner’s Dilemma The prisoner’s dilemma is one of the most popular games studied in game theory that has been portrayed in countless movies and crime television shows. The prisoner’s dilemma shows why two individuals might not agree, even if it appears that it is best to agree. In this scenario, two partners in crime are separated into separate rooms at the police station and given a similar deal. If one testifies against his partner and the partner stays quiet, the betrayer goes free and the partner receives the full sentence (ex: ten years). If both remain silent, both are sentences for a short time in jail (ex: one year) or for a minor charge. If each testifies against the other, each receives a moderate sentence (ex: three years). Each prisoner must choose to either betray or remain silent, and the decision of each is kept from the other. The prisoner’s dilemma can be applied to many other social situations, too, from political science to law to psychology to advertising. Take, for example, the issue of women wearing make-up. Each day across America, several million woman-hours are devoted to an activity with questionable benefit for society. Foregoing makeup would free up fifteen to thirty minutes for each woman every morning. However, if no one wore makeup, there would be great temptation for any one woman to gain an advantage over others by breaking the norm and using mascara, blush, and concealer to hide imperfections and enhance her natural beauty. Once a critical mass wears makeup, the average facade of female beauty is artificially made greater. Not wearing makeup means foregoing the artificial enhancement to beauty. Your beauty relative to what is perceived as average would decrease. Most women therefore wear makeup and what we end up with is a situation that is not ideal for the whole or for the indivi duals, but is based on rational choices by each individual. Assumptions Game Theorists Make The payoffs are known and fixed.All players behave rationally.The rules of the game are common knowledge. Resources and Further Reading Duffy, J. (2010) Lecture Notes: Elements of a Game. http://www.pitt.edu/~jduffy/econ1200/Lect01_Slides.pdfAndersen, M.L and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.