I fail to see the logic behind these sentences from a speech (historical in nature). The following sentences are from State House Yard Speech on the Constitution http://www.apstudent.com/ushistory/docs1751/yardcnst.htm The President is to be chosen by electors, nominated in such manner as the legislature of each state may direct; so that if there is no legislature, there can be no electors, and consequently the office of President cannot be supplied. The Senate is to be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the Legislature; and therefore if there is no Legislature, there can be no Senate. The House of Representatives, is to be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 【the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, - unless therefore, there is a State Legislature, that qualification cannot be ascertained, and the popular branch of the Federal constitution must likewise be extinct.】 From this view then it is evidently absurd to suppose, that the annihilation of the separate governments will result from their union... I know every word in these sentences but just don't get the logic, especially the part with 【】. Could you please clarify the logic behind it? For example, what is "the most numerous branch of the State Legislature"? What is the "qualification" and why can't it be "ascertained"? What is the "the popular branch of the Federal constitution"? And why should it "likewise be extinct" in that case? Only when I understand the part with 【】can I comprehend why "it is evidently absurd to suppose that..." Thank you soooooooooo much for your help :)

What does "in proportion as" mean in these sentences? I've seen the expression "in proportion as" in different passages, but I don't understand what it means in the context, though I know what "in proportion" means. For example, in Common Sense by Thomas Paine: but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that 【in proportion as】 they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other... in Report on Manufactures by Alexander Hamilton: 【In proportion as】 the mind is accustomed to trace the intimate connexion of interest, which subsists between all the parts of a Society united under the same government--the infinite variety of channels which serve to Circulate the prosperity of each to and through the rest--in that proportion will it be little apt to be disturbed by solicitudes and Apprehensions which originate in local discriminations. These two sentences are extremely long. Could anyone please clarify the meaning of "in proportion as" in the context? Thank you sooooooooo much.

I need help in understanding two of the sentences in these paragraphs These two paragraphs are excerpted from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s “General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century,” originally published in 1851. The Social Contract is the supreme act by which each citizen pledges to the association his love, his intelligence, his..., in return for the affection, ideas, ... and goods of his fellows; the measure of the right of each being determined by the importance of his contributions, and 【the [recovery] that can be demanded in proportion to his [deliveries]. 】 Thus the social contract should include all citizens, with their interests and relations. — If a single man were excluded from the contract, if a single one of the interests 【[upon] which the members of the nation, intelligent, industrious, and sensible beings, are called upon to [bargain]】, were omitted, the contract would be more or less relative or special, it would not be social. Could anyone please explain what the words/clauses (marked by 【 】and []) mean? Thank you very much :)I know every single word in the parts marked by 【】, but I have no idea what the parts mean, especially the words marked by []. I have looked up those words in the dictionary. However, I don't think their meanings fit in the context.

What does "a narrowly channeled exception" mean in this speech? Here is a speech delivered by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas on July 25, 1974. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm I know it is a powerful speech with far-reaching consequences, but I find its structure a bit confusing. At the beginning of the 7th paragraph, it says: The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. At the end of that paragraph, it says: "We need one branch to check the other," which I believe refers to the separation-of-powers maxim. If the nature of impeachment is still related to the separation-of-powers maxim, as is shown at the end of the paragraph, why did she say it is a 【narrowly channeled exception 】to the separation-of-powers maxim? What does "a narrowly channeled exception" mean in this speech?

I don't understand the usage of "what" in this context. This is an excerpt from Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s address to the 1869 Woman Suffrage Convention in Washington, DC. I urge a sixteenth amendment, because “manhood suffrage,” or a man’s government, is civil, religious, and social disorganization. The male element is a destructive force... See what a record of blood and cruelty the pages of history reveal! Through 【what】 slavery, slaughter, and sacrifice, through 【what】 inquisitions and imprisonments, pains and persecutions, black codes and gloomy creeds, the soul of humanity has struggled for the centuries, while mercy has veiled her face and all hearts have been dead alike to love and hope! The two whats that I mark in this paragraph do not introduce object clauses because they are followed by a series of nouns /noun phrases instead of a sentence. I think these two whats can be deleted and the sentence still makes sense. Why can "what" be used in this way? Thank you very much for your help!!! :)

I need help to follow some expressions in the latest trailer of Gifted starring Chris Evans Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7CAjpdRaXU I'm trying to transcribe this video, but there are some words I'm not very sure of or cannot understand at all. I have marked the times and the words. 01:20 Mary: Forgot [?] sign on the exponent. 01:37 Frank: You’re gonna take that girl. You’re gonna [? out] some think tank where she can talk [nontrivial] zeroes with a bunch of Russian guys for rest of her life. 01:53 Roberta: If any [baddy?] takes that baby away, I’ll [smack?] you in your sleep. 02:03 lawyer: Tell us, do you have [?] 02:20 Mary: [that’s a good question?] Thank you very much for your help!!! :)

TPO 34 Integrated Writing Task The passage introduces three possible reasons why sea cows went extinct. The lecture, however, refutes the three theories one by one and argues that there is another reason that caused the extinction. First of all, while the reading suggests over-hunting by local people as a possible cause, the population of native Siberian people, in fact, did not necessitate hunting that huge amount of sea cows. The lecturer points out that the sea cow was an enormous animal. They were 9 meters in length and 10 tons in weight, so one sea cow was enough to provide food for the natives for months. Secondly, the theory of ecological disturbance does not hold water because such disturbance could have triggered a big decline in other animals, not just kelp, the food source of sea cows. According to the fishing ships then, the professor says, there was not such a decline in other animals like whales, so the amount of kelp would be just fine and would not cause the extinction of sea cows. Finally, contrary to the belief in the text that the arrival of European fur traders probably brought about the extinction, 1700s had already seen a very small number of sea cows before those traders came to the island. Therefore, the ongoing dropping in the number might arise from other conditions.

TPO 41 Integrated Writing Task The passage introduces the negative attitudes of power companies towards creating new regulations on coal ash with their three reasons. The lecturer believes stricter rules for coal ash’s handling and disposal are necessary and refutes the three points one by one. First of all, although current regulations do exist on using liners to prevent coal ash leakage into soil, they are only applied, according to the lecture, when companies build new ponds or landfills. Significant damage will still be done to environment when the coal ash components leak into ground water and pollute drinking water. So current regulations are not effective enough, and there should be new rules applied to both new and old ponds and landfills. Secondly, while the companies claim new regulations will discourage consumers from using recycled coal ash, the professor contradicts this claim by citing the example of mercury. It is commonly known that mercury itself is poisonous, but the successful rules help the safe use of recycled mercury for 50 years. Likewise, consumers will not be afraid to use recycled coal ash if it is handled properly in accordance with stricter regulations. Finally, the lecturer states that the increased cost, which worries the power companies, is well worth the effect of environmental conservation. Even if the implementation of new rules necessitates 15 billion dollars, household electricity bills will rise averagely by only one percent. Therefore, it is actually not too big a price for the general public, who would rather have a clean environment than a lower electricity bill.

TPO 29 Integrated Writing Task The reading passage introduced three reasons why Edmontosaurs were supposed to migrate for winter survival. The lecturer believes the dinosaurs were not migrants and refutes the three points one by one. First of all, Edmontosaurs did not need migration to find enough food because the climate was much warmer 100 million years ago, let alone the effect of 24-hour daytime in the arctic zone. In other words, plenty of plants grew in summer. While the passage claims that the dinosaurs had no plants to eat in the cold, dark winter, the lecturer points out that they could actually have dead plants full of nutrients for food. Secondly, although the passage says the bones digged out indicate the dinosaurs' living in herds, this does not necessarily mean that they migrated. The professor explains that migration also happens for other reasons, like extra protection from predators. Thirdly, while adult Edmontosaurs were capable of walking a long distance and moving at a high speed, juvenile ones were not. If these animals had migrated, the small ones would have slowed the herds down, and thus could not have reached their destination on time. So Edmontosaurs should survive in the North Slope without migration.