I am required to do an anticipatory and closing set (5 to 10 minutes) for each 75 minute class on Tuesdays With Morrie. Does anyone have clever...

I assume from the placement of this question in the Tuesday's With Morrie group that you are asking about anticipatory and closing sets for lessons on this very book.  Keep in mind the basic purposes for anticipatory and closing sets as well as the objectives of your lesson.  An anticipatory set is designed to get students to use prior knowledge that they can apply to the lesson that day.  It often sparks interest, creates excitement, and builds anticipation, but the main purpose is to connect prior knowledge with new knowledge.  A closing set is used to wrap up the lesson and tie everything together.  Its main purpose is to drive home the main point of the lesson that day, and possibly get students to take the knowledge to a new level.

One of the greatest and in my opinion, easiest, things about this book is how quickly most students can relate to its different messages.  In several writing lessons (not necessarily studying this book) I've used different quotes from Tuesdays With Morrie as warm-up journal prompts.  I'll often post a quote with a few personal questions attached or I'll simply put the quote and write "Respond."  Here's a quick example:

It was only through default that the best professor I ever had became a teacher (from "The Professor").

1. Who has been your favorite teacher of all time and why?

Though it is a simple task, it gets students to draw from experience and make a personal connection before doing the lesson for the day.  Closing sets, for me, vary by lesson.  I will often have students go back to their journal entries from the beginning of class and explore their ideas further (given the subject of the lecture that day).  Once in a while I'll give them a question to discuss with a partner.  If your lesson has an "essential question" (the most important point of the lesson) it is often a good idea to have students answer that question in their own words at the end of class.  If you wish to be creative, you can have students come up with a "review question" and answer for the lesson that day.  You'll be surprised to see what individuals deem important and this is a way you can see what your students "got" out of the lesson that day.

Does Jack embody Hitler? Why or why not?

This is not the only time someone has suggested the connection, but in my mind there are several holes in the idea, even some that weren't mentioned by the previous post which does quite a good job.

Hitler couched much of his policy and his ideals in a very "righteous" way, the idea that they would be returning to the morals and righteousness of a forgotten time in Germany.  He obviously used the depredations of the Treaty of Versailles and the failed state-like conditions that it induced in Germany, but he also appealed to a sense of order and a sense of a higher power, something that Jack is clearly (at least in my mind) pushing back against as he appeals to the boys baser instincts.

The connection, I think, is one that people draw because of the idea of blood lust and the desire to kill and to maim and though Hitler certainly pushed the Army and the SS and many others to do horrible things, he rarely used that so blatantly as his appeal to the people, whereas Jack says simply that they are strong and can kill and satisfy themselves and that they needn't be afraid.

What are the male-female relations in "A Jury of Her Peers"?

Unfortunately, the male/female relations in "A Jury of our Peers" were typical of that time.  How women were able to be treated is best seen through the evidence, the "trifles," which are discovered by Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters and dismissed by the men. 

Women were not to be persons in their own rights  Obviously Mr. Wright was furious at the singing of a bird, at the idea that his wife might interact with the outside world, at the idea that his wife coulod have a life and friends aside from him. He wielded the power and she was to be a silent, submissive woman.

Men were always right and superior.  Obviously the clues to this murder are all over the house and in plain sight; the men, however, think they know best what kinds of things are clues/evidence and in what kinds of places those clues would be found.  They laugh at the women and dismiss them at every turn.

Because of these two things, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters conduct their own infomal trial and act as Minnie's jury--and they obviously find her not guilty.

How do you make a proof using PMI for (n) + (n) + (n)+...+(n) = 2^n 0 1 2 n using the binomial theorom?I...

If you throw a coin one time,the possiblities of outcome are  2= 2^1 Head or Tail

If you throw a coin 2 times, possiblities of outcome are: hh, th,ht,tt=4 =2^2 possiblities.

Similarly if the coin is thown 3 times , possblities are:hhh,hht,hth,thh,htt,tht,tth,ttt = 2^3.

Thus each trial has 2 possible outcomes.

If the coin is thrown  n times , the number possible outcomes are =2^n.

Let us see the other way these outcomes of n throws:

In n trials, number no heads

No heads and all are tails in ntrials is only one possiblityand symbolically it is nC0.

Number one head comining up of one head = nC1

Number of ways of appearing 2 heads =nC2

Number of ways of appearing 3 heads =nC3

Number of ways of appearing 4 heads =nC4

...........  ......... .................... .............

Number of ways of appearing all n heads=nCn.

Adding all the above ways heads from o heads to n heads in n trials exhausts all ways possiblities which is 2^n. Therefore,

nC0+nC1+nC2+nC4+................+nCn = 2^n

The Misfit says he kills for pleasure. Does he also kill to get even for what he perceives as society's unjust treatment of him?

As the brutal and unrepentant murderer in Flannery O'Connor's short story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find," the Misfit has no qualms about killing men, women or children. He admits to not being a good man, and he seems resigned to living up to his father's prediction that he is "a different breed of dog... (who is) going to be into everything." His crimes are so lengthy that he cannot remember what he first did to land him in prison. But he has a strong belief that no matter what he does, "kill a man or take a tire off his car," he will be punished for it.

He believes that his various punishments have far surpassed his crimes. He understands that you should

"sign everything you do and keep a copy of it... in the end, you'll have something to prove you ain't been treated right. I call myself The Misfit," he said, "because I can't take what all I done wrong fit what all I gone through in punishment."

He asks the grandmother if it's fair that some people are never punished for their crimes when "another ain't punished at all?" The Misfit has been reduced to having "no pleasure but meanness."

What are the different boys' views of the beast?

The beast, of course, which doesn't exist, changes in the boys' imaginations. In Chapter 2, it begins as a "snake thing":

Ralph laughed... The small boy twisted further into himself.
“Tell us about the snake-thing.”
“Now he says it was a beastie.”
“Beastie?”
“A snake-thing. Ever so big. He saw it.”
“Where?”
“In the woods.”

Golding is always careful to let the reader know what the "beast" really is: in this case, it's simply vines:

“He says in the morning it turned into them things like ropes in the trees and hung in the branches."

In a later meeting, there's a suggestion that the beast comes from the sea, or even that the beast might be a ghost. Simon, in the same meeting, has it right: there is a beast, he says, but “What I mean is. . . maybe it’s only us.”

And the same thing happens later when the parachutist falls to the island, "beneath a parachute, a figure that hung with dangling limbs." This becomes, in the eyes of SamnEric,

“There were eyes—”
“Teeth—”
“Claws—”
“We ran as fast as we could—”
“Bashed into things—”
“The beast followed us—”
“I saw it slinking behind the trees—”

The key point here is that there is no consistency to the way the beast is imagined. Which makes sense: because the beast itself is entirely imaginary in any realistic way. The darkness which hides the "real beast" is, as Golding points out in the final paragraph of the novel, "the darkness of man's heart".

In The Crucible, what is Parris' speech from Act Four about? "Now Mr Hale's returned..." about? What is their "good purpose"?

Parris is worried that the town is becoming dissatisfied with the execution of its citizens: particularly when those executed are "people [who] have great weight yet in the town" (Act Four). Parris is arguing with Hathorne and Danforth, telling them that they should "postpone these hangin's for a time". Here's the full speech you refer to:

Now Mr Hale's returned, there is hope, I think - for if he brings even one of these to God, that confession surely damns the others in the public eye, and none may doubt more that they are all linked to Hell. This way, unconfessed and claiming innocence, doubts are multiplied, many honest people will weep for them, and our good purpose is lost in their tears.

If people are executed after they have confessed to witchcraft, then "none may doubt that they are all linked to Hell". But, if people are executed unconfessed and claiming innocence, then the other townspeople doubt how just the trials were, and discontent is bred. The people cry, and lose sight of the "purpose" of the trials.

And what is the "good purpose" behind all these executions? To wipe out the witches and witchcraft from Salem, and to turn it back into a noble, Christian community. But, of course, when people are being executed, the politics within the town have to be carefully managed - as executing people isn't the most Christian thing to do, per se. And this is what Parris is arguing about.

Hope it helps!