What do Francois and Perrault expect of their dogs?

In Jack London's novel, "Call of The Wild," we meet Buck.  Buck has been stolen from his peaceful and relaxing life at Judge Miller's home.  He has been sold into a hard life of labor and stressful existence.  After being "broken" by the man with the club Buck is purchased by Francois and Perrault.  These men run a sled with supplies and mail.  The dogs they buy to pull the sled must be survivors and they must be strong. 

Francois and Perrault expect their dogs to work together as one.  They expect the more experienced dogs to train the new dogs and they expect the dogs to work to the best of their abilities to move from point A to point B with little or no trouble.  This does not really happen until after Buck kills Spitz and Buck takes over the team.

"They are just masters who treat the dogs fairly, although they get the maximum amount of work out of their dogs with the minimum amount of food."

In "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," what conclusions can you draw about Smiley's character?

Jim Smiley is an interesting character indeed, and Wheeler gives enough details to draw some pretty solid conclusions.  The first thing that we learn about him is that he is a curious man, meaning, he was curious about people and things around him.  Smiley's curiosity take the form of betting--he is curious to know just how fast something can go, how far it can go, and sets up bets to find out.  It's an interesting form to take, but Wheeler calls him "the curiosest man about."  Wheeler also concludes that he was pretty "lucky," because he often won the bets that he staged.  Some inferences, or guesses made by reading between the lines, that can be drawn here, is that Smiley was not a rich man (betting might have supplemented his income, AND, he had come to a mining town for work), and possibly addicted to gambling.  We learn that he would bet on anything with anyone at any time.

Smiley was also determined--Wheeler mentions how if he had bet on how far a bug would walk, he would follow that bug "to Mexico" to find out the answer.  I also gather that he was rather unsrupulous and tactless at times, given the fact that he even placed a bet on the longevity of the pastor's wife.  Betting was the man's life, and he did it even at the cost of offending people, and being incredibly rude while doing it.

Overall, Smiley seems like a man who would be amusing to tell stories about, but kind-of a pain to know in person.  I hope that those thoughts helped; good luck!

What was the reason for an increase in voters in 1828 than 1824? What led to the nullification crisis?

The main reason for the increase in voters was the fact that suffrage was expanded.  Many more people were allowed to vote in 1828 than in 1824.  This was part of the changes of the Jacksonian Era.

The nullification crisis came out of the Tariff of 1828.  The South disliked the tariff very much.  They felt it hurt them and helped only the North.  So they tried to nullify it -- to say it was illegal and they would not follow it.  So then there was a crisis about what to do if part of the country said that.

Why does Montag turn to books when he is unhappy?the book he possession is the last of its kind in his part of the world?

Specifically, in Fahrenheit 451, Montag turns to books because he is unhappy.  He wants some of what Clarisse has.

Montag is smart enough to see that television is simple-minded, that his marriage is without love, that he is incapable of looking at nature and finding something of value in it.  He is smart enough to know that something is wrong with a society in which technicians that pump people's stomachs after overdoses of sleeping pills, do it so often that they are nonchalant about it. 

Montag simply wants more.  Clarisse and her family show him what conversation can be like.  She shows him the interest in nature and love that she has.  And he wants the same things.

He turns to books in the hope that they can change his existence.  And, eventually, they do. 

What is 'Love at first sight'? Is it scientifically correct? If yes give reason to explain your point.This time my project is somewhat...

I understand the term "scientifically correct" to mean that something can be isolated and tested (or otherwise verified) against some previously established scientific theories. I don't see how "love" (much less "love at first sight") falls in the category of things that can be scientifically verified. We can test the effectiveness of airbags in protecting drivers and passengers in car collisions, but we can't do the same for when people and emotions collide.

All sorts of scientific studies around the subject of "love" are possible, of course. Through extensive longitudinal studies (in which we could track specific people in specific relationships), we might be able to determine all sorts of things that can contribute to the success or failure of a long-term relationship. Similarly, we could get a sense of the power of first impressions by using hi-tech equipment to see what parts of a person's brain lights up when introduced to photographs of a range of different people in different situations.

In the end, though, I doubt that the idea of "love at first sight" is a suitable subject of scientific research. I suspect that there are multiple types of attraction (each of which certainly could be studied scientifically in some fashion), with some of these types of attraction being more important when people first meet and some only developing over time and with cultivation.

Through a Google search using the terms "Love" and "at first sight," I found a number of leads that you may find interesting. Three are given below. All of the studies I found on this subject are full of "mights" and "coulds," and at least one of them deals with fruit flies. Do fruit flies even love?

What's Nick's value in Gatsby's party? (chapter 3)

In The Great Gatsby, Nick's role in Gatsby's party is three-fold: his an observer-narrator, a poet, and a moral voice who sets himself up to be better than the others.  This last one is most important, as the reader will align himself with Nick and Gatsby against the others, even though they are all complicit in the immorality of the age.

As observer-narrator, Nick reveals the carnival atmosphere of the party:

But as I walked down the steps I saw that the evening was not quite over. Fifty feet from the door a dozen headlights illuminated a bizarre and tumultuous scene. In the ditch beside the road, right side up, but violently shorn of one wheel, rested a new coupe which had left Gatsby’s drive not two minutes before. The sharp jut of a wall accounted for the detachment of the wheel, which was now getting considerable attention from half a dozen curious chauffeurs. However, as they had left their cars blocking the road, a harsh, discordant din from those in the rear had been audible for some time, and added to the already violent confusion of the scene.

As a poet, he assembles a collage of imagery that rivals T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock":

There was dancing now on the canvas in the garden; old men pushing young girls backward in eternal graceless circles, superior couples holding each other tortuously, fashionably, and keeping in the corners—and a great number of single girls dancing individualistically or relieving the orchestra for a moment of the burden of the banjo or the traps. By midnight the hilarity had increased. A celebrated tenor had sung in Italian, and a notorious contralto had sung in jazz, and between the numbers people were doing “stunts.” all over the garden, while happy, vacuous bursts of laughter rose toward the summer sky. A pair of stage twins, who turned out to be the girls in yellow, did a baby act in costume, and champagne was served in glasses bigger than finger-bowls. The moon had risen higher, and floating in the Sound was a triangle of silver scales, trembling a little to the stiff, tinny drip of the banjoes on the lawn.

As the moral voice of the novel, Nick attempts to set himself up as morally superior to the others at the party:

Every one suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known.

What is 'condensed wisdom' according to Francis Bacon?condensed wisdom in Bacon's essays

I'm not quite sure what Bacon specifically meant by "condensed wisdom." But I do have an educated guess. Bacon was a fan of aphorisms (very concise sayings which convey a lot of meaning. He also was a reductionist-inductionist in terms of science. This means that he wanted to describe things in their simplest and most fundamental ways: for example, he would describe condensation by talking about the chemical reactions and atomic particles: as gas becomes water: it becomes more dense, more compact.

So, his goal was to break things down into their simplest and most concise terms: in other words, he liked to condense wisdom as a practice.

What I think he would've meant by "condensed wisdom" is the general sum total knowledge of a given society during a particular period n history. I.e., the condensed wisdom of the Ancient Greeks - broken down, simplified.

One of Bacon's famous concepts is that of the ancient-modern analogy. Instead of viewing the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans of antiquity as the "ancients," Bacon viewed the most current time (now) as ancient and those "ancient Greeks" as younger, because the world was younger then.

And for its value and utility it must be plainly avowed that the wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge, and has the characteristic property of boys: it can talk, but it cannot generate; for it is fruitful of controversies but barren of works. From - Instauratio Magna.

For the old age of the world is to be accounted the true antiquity; and this is the attribute of our own times, not of the earlier age of the world in which the ancients lived; and which, though in respect to us it was elder, yet in respect to the world it was younger. From Novum Organum.

In other words, Bacon perceived that the world (like a person) is older now, so now is the ancient time, the wiser time (since the world and those in it have collectively more experience, more experimentation and so on.) The ancient Greeks (the centuries around 400 BCE) existed in the boyhood of the world and we are NOW in the adulthood.

This was Bacon's support of progress, Modernity, and the idea that each successive generation can and should improve on the last. Each successive generation would use the "condensed wisdom" of past generations to build from. So, we take the condensed wisdom of Greek philosophy, Egyptian geometry, Islamic science, etc. and we, the moderns (the actual ancients) improve upon what they've done, making us in the process, and over time, wiser.

The further back in history you go (to when the world was younger), the easier it is to condense the world's collective wisdom, because like a person, we knew less then than we do now.