Answer Why Does Elizabeth Want John to Go to Salem

Answer Why Does Elizabeth Want John to Go to Salem SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Many readers have the same question about Act 2 of The Crucible:why does Elizabeth want John to go to Salem?This article provides both short and long answers to this question. It should help you to understand the reasoning behind her request, why it changes slightly over the course of the act, and how it connects to the lingering tension in their marriage. Why Is This Question Tricky? This question addresses an important but somewhat confusing aspect of the plot in Act 2. John and Elizabeth Proctor have several one-on-one conversations in this act that introduce the audience to the issues in their marriage that have arisen as a result of John's affair. Elizabeth asks John to go to Salem twice, changing her request slightly when she learns additional information about the court proceedings from Mary. Her first request is driven by an urgent concern for the others who have been accused, but her second request is an even more dire plea as she realizes that she herself is in danger from the trials. We'll look at what the different requests are and why Elizabeths makes them from both a practical and psychological standpoint. Short Answer Elizabeth initially wants John to go to Salem so he can testify that Abigail told him Betty’s illness had nothing to do with witchcraft. When Elizabeth finds out from Mary that she was accused in court, however, she decides she wants John to speak with Abigail directly. She says he must tell Abigail that they will never enter into a romatic relationship again. Elizabeth hopes this will dissuade Abigail from making additional false accusations designed to remove her from the picture. Elizabeth's hope is that John will be willing to set the record straight, first on an official level and then on a personal level.This is the only way he can prove his loyalty to her over Abigail.As she says, â€Å"I will be your only wife, or no wife at all!† (pg. 59) For Elizabeth, this is about more than just protecting herself from accusations. It symbolizes John's renewed commitment to their marriage and the final nail in the coffin for his infatuation with Abigail. Long Answer Elizabeth Proctor first urges John Proctor to go to Salem so he can testify that Abigail and the other girls are frauds.John knows this to be a fact because when he and Abigail spoke alone in Act 1, Abigail scoffed at the suggestion that Betty’s illness had anything to do with witchcraft. Here’s the exact exchange between John and Abigail (on page 20): PROCTOR: The road past my house is a pilgrimage to Salem all morning. The town’s mumbling witchcraft. ABIGAIL: Oh, posh! We were dancin’ in the woods last night, and my uncle leaped in on us. She took fright, is all. John is hesitant to go into town and produce this evidence because he’s not sure he will be believed. It’s his word against Abigail's. He says, â€Å"If the girl’s a saint now, I think it is not so easy to prove she’s fraud, and the town gone so silly. She told it to me in a room alone - I have no proof for it† (pg. 51). Elizabeth is frustrated because she believes that some of his reluctance really stems from the fact that he still has feelings for Abigail.She says, â€Å"John, if it were not Abigail that you must go to hurt, would you falter now? I think not† (pg. 52).Her trust in him is shaken by the fact that he spoke with Abigail alone, a detail that he kept to himself until now.Elizabeth needs John to give his testimony discrediting Abigail to prove that he has moved on from her and his loyalties aren’t divided (and because it’s the honest thing to do). After Mary Warren reveals that Elizabeth was accused briefly during that day’s trial, Elizabeth’s request regarding John’s visit to Salem changes.She sees that the situation is more dire than they originally thought; her life may actually be in danger because of Abigail’s vendetta against her.She now wants John to go to Salem so he can speak with Abigail and tell her that the two of them will never end up together under any circumstances.She knows that Abigail wants her out of the picture so that she can take her place as John’s wife.If Abigail hears directly from John that this will never happen, she might be persuaded to give up her charade. Elizabeth urges, â€Å"Whatever promise she may sense - break it, John, break it† (pg. 59). She understands that thehysteria surrounding the trials has grown to a point where addressing the root of the problem (Abigail) may be more effective than attempting to convince the court officials that the girls are lying. Also, if John speaks to Abigail himself, Abigail won't be able to mistake his intentions in the future. If he's willing to do this, it will prove to Elizabeth that he really is done with the affair psychologically as well as physically. The psychological wounds of John's affair run deeper than his romatically obtuse brain can comprehend. Summary: Why Does Elizabeth Want John to Go to Salem? Ok, let's recap the answer to this question with some snappy bullet points: Elizabeth originally wants John to go to Salem so he can tell the court that he knows the girls are lying. Then, when she finds out she was accused in court, she wants him to go to Salem to speak directly with Abigail. Elizabeth makes these requests with an eye towards correcting injustice and saving her own life. However, she also has a more emotional motive, which is to force John to show his loyalty to her and fully renounce his connection to Abigail. What's Next? Want more details about what exactly happens in Act 2 of The Crucible? Check out our full summary of Act 2, including key quotes and thematic analysis. We've also written in-depth analyses that focus on the main characters of the play. Read a complete breakdown of John Proctor's relationships, motivations, and personality traits. Looking for some good quotes to include in your essay for English class? We have a full list of the most important quotes in The Crucible along with explanations of their thematic relevance. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

Free Essays on DWI

In the 1950’s, consequences were nothing compared to present day consequences for drinking and driving. Why do underage drinkers feel they have to drive after drinking? What are the consequences currently if you drink and drive? What are the consequences going to be in fifty years? I believe that in this world there should be more consequences for one that drinks and drives. I think that underage drinkers feel they have to drive home for the night so they don’t get caught either by parents or the authorities. Male drivers age 16 to 20 have six times the driver fatality risk in single vehicle crashes at BAC’s (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of .01 to .04 compared to male drivers age 25 and older at these low levels. (Council 1) There is a law now called the Zero-Tolerance Law, which states that any underage drinker caught driving automatically loses their license till they are 21. The required BAC is .02 for the zero tolerance law. It is not worth getting behind the wheel after you have been drinking. Very recently the legal BAC has changed from .10 to .08.The consequences for a person who is convicted of a DWI is 90 days suspended license, mandatory 3 days in jail, anywhere from a $250-$2500 fine, plus your vehicle is impounded for 30 days. If we were to compare the drinking and driving laws in the 1950’s to today, we have to think what they are going to be like 50 years from now. In Germany they put you to death if they are convicted of a DWI. Is that going to be the case for the USA? What direction are our consequences going to go? A slap on the wrist, education about drinking or straight to death after conviction? I believe the police officer’s intentions were good when he decided to pull me over, because others drunk drivers have killed people. The consequences are unknown until you get caught. Then you start to think of how many times you have actually committed it before. A fifteen-dollar cab fare i... Free Essays on DWI Free Essays on DWI In the 1950’s, consequences were nothing compared to present day consequences for drinking and driving. Why do underage drinkers feel they have to drive after drinking? What are the consequences currently if you drink and drive? What are the consequences going to be in fifty years? I believe that in this world there should be more consequences for one that drinks and drives. I think that underage drinkers feel they have to drive home for the night so they don’t get caught either by parents or the authorities. Male drivers age 16 to 20 have six times the driver fatality risk in single vehicle crashes at BAC’s (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of .01 to .04 compared to male drivers age 25 and older at these low levels. (Council 1) There is a law now called the Zero-Tolerance Law, which states that any underage drinker caught driving automatically loses their license till they are 21. The required BAC is .02 for the zero tolerance law. It is not worth getting behind the wheel after you have been drinking. Very recently the legal BAC has changed from .10 to .08.The consequences for a person who is convicted of a DWI is 90 days suspended license, mandatory 3 days in jail, anywhere from a $250-$2500 fine, plus your vehicle is impounded for 30 days. If we were to compare the drinking and driving laws in the 1950’s to today, we have to think what they are going to be like 50 years from now. In Germany they put you to death if they are convicted of a DWI. Is that going to be the case for the USA? What direction are our consequences going to go? A slap on the wrist, education about drinking or straight to death after conviction? I believe the police officer’s intentions were good when he decided to pull me over, because others drunk drivers have killed people. The consequences are unknown until you get caught. Then you start to think of how many times you have actually committed it before. A fifteen-dollar cab fare i...

Electoral capture Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Electoral capture - Essay Example Frymer states that the ideas of electoral capture is a phenomenon where a topical and relevant group of citizens confidently votes for a certain leader and supports one of the key political parties, and thus realize the majority opposition party noticing little or no attempts to recruit or get any support from the group. This practice occurs for a long time because of ideological and historical reasons (Frymer 24). With time, the group will support a specific party. Electoral capture is especially applied in instances when a certain group has no other option apart from remaining with the political party it is associated with, since the opposing party has no or little interest in winning the group's support. In this sense therefore, the party with the majority that has been backed takes it for granted that the group voted for it. Thus, the "captured" voters are politically trapped and their issues are done away with, on both sides of the coin. Baatels's arguments become consistent with Frymer's theory at some point. Bartels found that, the poor do better in times when Democrats are in power though neither of the parties represents them as expected. It is logical to argue that, Frymer's findings have changed since in the election of Obama. During Bill Clinton's times, the Blacks felt neglected on several spectrums by the Democrats. However, with Obama's election, there has been a tremendous change in diversity in America. The Latino population has risen for more than 50%., as well as a noticeable expansion in the Pacific/Asian population, which are some of the minority groups. This means that ultimately, the candidates will appeal to such marginalized groups of voters. Eventually, legislators' representation to citizens, there is a big number of the rich, white men in power, but critically thinking, this does not show their constituents' dynamism in wealth, race, or class, and when such an idea is brought into light, the i nadequacy of diverse representation is blown off as political correctness ramblings. To suggest that the unequal consideration is true and taking effect and that misrepresentation is evident between the legislatures and the citizens being represented is indeed correct. Maligning such a reality is diminutive, and does not address the issue that maybe legislators fail to understand their constituents, and simply take their votes for