What was the Macbeths' plan to implicate Duncan's grooms (or bodyguards)?

Lady Macbeth reveals something of the plan to us when she tells Macbeth that he shouldn't have carried the daggers from the murder-scene:

Why did you bring these daggers from the place?
They must lie there. Go carry them, and smear
The sleepy grooms with blood.

In the next, scene, Lennox describes the scene as Lady Macbeth has left it - of course, it's her, not Macbeth, who returns to smear the grooms with blood:

Those of his chamber, as it seem'd, had done't:
Their hands and faces were all badged with blood;
So were their daggers, which unwiped we found
Upon their pillows:
They stared, and were distracted; no man's life
Was to be trusted with them.

The grooms "stare" and are "distracted" (can either be "distraught" or "maddened")  because - of course - they haven't done anything. And then Macbeth admits - to everyone's surprise, including Lady M's - that he has killed both of the grooms.

So you see the ideal plan: but of course, in practice, it is botched twice: Macbeth first forgets to leave the daggers, and then kills the grooms on a whim (which makes him - rightly - seem extremely suspicious!).

In "Lord of the Flies", why does Jack hesitate at his first opportunity to kill a pig?

This is the bit from the novel you need, from the end of the first chapter:

Jack drew his knife again with a flourish. He raised his arm in the air. There came a pause, a hiatus, the pig continued to scream and the creepers to jerk, and the blade continued to flash at the end of a bony arm. The pause was only long enough for them to understand what an enormity the downward stroke would be. Then the piglet tore loose from the creepers and scurried into the undergrowth. They were left looking at each other and the place of terror. Jack’s face was white under the freckles....

“Why didn’t you—?”

They knew very well why he hadn’t: because of the enormity of the knife descending and cutting into living flesh; because of the unbearable blood.

“I was going to,” said Jack.

Jack pauses because he's just a boy, he's never killed anything before, and the actual act of cutting into a live creature with a knife was just too much for him. The blood which followed would be "unbearable". So Jack hesitates, and the pig escapes.

It's a clear sign from Golding that Jack doesn't start off as a monster. He can't kill a pig, never mind Pig-gy. But, as the novel continues, Jack's trajectory moves steadily toward murder and brutality.

What are your impressions of the two main characters?

We are made to feel both pity for and resentment at Jing Mei's mother. We are given brief details about her difficult past in China and how she viewed her coming to America as representing being somewhere where anyone could achieve anything, so from this perspective we can understand the pressure under which Jing Mei is placed by her mother: partly her mother wants her daughter to have the success and prosperity that she was never able to have in her childhood and life.

However, through use of first person narration we are able to identify with the character of Jing Mei, and appreciate her increasing resentment throughout the story of her mother and her desire to be her own person and to be "normal".

Jing Mei and her mother both commit acts of cruely to each other, the high point of conflict coming after Jing Mei's disastrous debut as a pianist, when she refers to her mother's other children that died. Both characters are incredibly stubborn, and even though Jing Mei admits she could have become a competent pianist, she deliberately chose not to as a means of defying her mother's wishes and becoming the person she chose to be.

What is interesting about the ending of the story is Jing Mei's description of the piano as a "shiny trophy" - suggesting perhaps that she had metaphorically "won" it, but on her own terms, rather than by following her mother's plan for her life. Jing Mei's realisation that the piece of music "Pleading Child" is coupled with "Perfectly Contented" likewise provides a pleasing ending to this excerpt as we come to see that Jing Mei has reached a stage where she is no longer trying to gain her mother's approval and is at peace with her own decisions and life choices.

The two main characters in "Two Kinds" therefore are similar in their stubborness and resolute nature. Jing Mei's mother insists on trying to mould her daughter into a "prodigy" for a number of motives - both for her own good and for pride. However, in response to this pressure, Jing Mei embarks on a quest to gain the right to not be spectacular and to be normal, gaining her own independence and sense of selfhood through the process of this quest.

What is the literary device used in these lines from "Four Skinny Trees"? Here are the lines: They are the only ones who understand me....

The major device used at the beginning of the poem is personification. The trees have "skinny necks" and "point elbows". Cisneros then uses a simile to compare the trees to herself (like mine). Thus the trees become a metaphor for herself and her sisters. "They are ragged excuses planted by the city. Personification and metaphor is continued in the second stanza. When Cisneros writes, "They sent ferocious roots...and grab the earth..and never quit their anger," she is not only personifying the trees but also making them a metaphor for herself and the anger she feels.

In the third stanza, Cisneros continues using metaphor to suggest that if the trees (or she and her sisters) are removed from the tree (or her family) they will "droop like tulips (simile) with their arms around each other." In other words, they stand together in times of trouble.

In the final stanza, Cisneros continues the metaphor between herself, her sisters, and the trees. "When I am a tiny thing against so many bricks it is then I look at trees." Bricks can be used to walk on and also can be thrown at people. The implication is that when she faces problems and, perhaps prejudice, she remembers the trees and how their only reason was "to be." In other words, she has a right to live like the trees and needs no reason to make excuses for her life.

In what time period does Lord of the Flies take place?

To be completely accurate, there is no exact date that is given as the context of the novel. However, we can make a few deductions. If we do this, World War II makes the most sense.

First, there was a war going on. The parachutist who fell from the sky was a war victim in a plane fight. Also there is the detail that Ralph’s father was a commander in the navy.

Second, there is mention of the Atomic bomb, which was used in World War II. Here is what Piggy says:

Piggy shook his head, put on his flashing glasses and looked down at Ralph.

“Not them. Didn’t you hear what the pilot said? About the atom bomb? They’re all dead.”

Third, at the end of the novel a soldier in a crisp uniform found the boys. When we also add the fact that William Golding served in the Royal Navy and served in the battle of Normandy, World War II is our best guess. 

From a military standpoint, what is the result of the first encounter, in "The Red Badge of Courage"?

From a military view, the Union soldiers managed to hold off the Confederates. Henry ran from the battle, but a sufficient amount of soldiers held their positions. The soldiers that remained were able to repel the opposing forces, and so ensured a victory for the Union. Henry is very embarassed about running from the battle, and also scared that he will be branded as a deserter, and so tries to hide the fact that he was absent when the battle took place. From an overall military standpoint though, the Union forces won.

In "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", how does Twain satirize do-gooders in his description of Pap's reform? How is the new judge different from...

Twain satirizes do-gooders--more politely known as philanthropists--in his description of the extravagant, tearful sentimentality displayed by the new judge and his wife in their attempts to reform Pap Finn. For instance, when Pap solemnly gives them his hand to shake, the judge's wife is not content with just doing that, she also kisses his hand. Twain plays up the complacency, not to say pomposity, of people like this judge who appears confident not just of reforming Pap but doing so literally overnight. He gets a rude awakening when Pap repays all his efforts by getting hopelessly drunk, climbing out of the house and falling and breaking his arm. Therefore Twain shows just how useless do-gooders can be. In this instance, the judge is completely taken in by mere appearances, when Pap seems to be so ashamed and repentant, making a long solemn speech about how he's going to turn over a new leaf. His actions don't even begin to correlate with his words, however.

Twain often took 'do-gooders' to task in his writings--members of temperance societies, prison reformers, and the like. He shows them as being often exaggeratedly sentimental and affected, and hopelessly unrealistic in their expectations of bettering individuals and society.