18497 questions

How do I know when to use the preterite and imperfect tenses?

Both the preterite and imperfect tenses are used to describe an action that occurred in the past. Use of each will depend on the frequency of the action, whether it was completed or not, whether it was limited in time, and the context in which the action took place. Sometimes it may be possible to use either.  Use the preterite to express an action that was completed in the past: Ayer vi a Julio y a Juan- yesterday I saw Julio and Juan.  Use of the imperfect here (veía) would suggest a continuous/ prolonged action, and would only really be used if it was describing the background against which another event (usually expressed in the preterite) took place: Ayer veía la televisión cuando sonó el teléfono- yesterday I was watching television when the telephone rang. The preterite is thus used to express instantaneous events, i.e. events that happened suddenly and in the moment: Me rompí la pierna- I broke my leg; De repente oí el teléfono- suddenly I heard the phone. It is also used to describe events that occurred within a specific time period, i.e. where the beginning and end of the period is clear. Look for time indicators such as 'durante' or 'por' to know if an action is limited in time: Habló durante tres horas- he spoke for three hours;  Por un instante pensé en mi hermana- for a moment I thought of my sister. The imperfect is used to describe a past event that continued for an unspecified period of time- where the beginning and end is not clear: Mi padre jugaba conmigo- my father played/ used to play with me (we don't know how long for). It is therefore used to describe habitual actions and characteristics: Cuando era pequeña iba al colegio en autobús- when I was young I used to go to school by bus. Mi casa era grande; mi padre tenía los ojos azules- my house was big; my father had blue eyes. The imperfect is used as the main tense in stories and when someone is evoking a memory/ past experience, as it is a descriptive tense: Recuerdo que tenía que llevar un uniforme- I remember that I had to wear a uniform. It often provides the background description to another event (see above): Llovía cuando llegué- It was raining when I arrived. When phrases like 'todos los días' or 'todos los años' are used, it may be possible to use either tense. If you see the action as complete, so if you are looking back on it as a whole, use the preterite: Todos los días me levanté a las ocho- every day I got up at eight. If you see it as happening at the time, use the imperfect: Todos los días me levantaba a las ocho- every day I got up/ was getting up at eight.     Example of a short passage: Trabajé como una camarera durante dos semanas (I worked as a waitress for two weeks. ‘Trabajar’ is used in the preterite because the action is limited in time). Tenía que llevar un uniforme y podía usar el teléfono del restaurante (I had to wear a uniform and I was able to use the restaurant telephone. ‘Tener’ and ‘poder’ are used in the imperfect because it is a description- they describe a state of affairs that was happening at the time). Todos los días hablé/ hablaba con los clientes (every day I talked/ was talking to the customers. ‘Hablar’ may be in the preterite or imperfect, since the phrase ‘todos los días’ has been used). Fue una experiencia maravillosa (it was a wonderful experience. ‘Ser’ is in the preterite because it describes an event that has finished/ been completed- the idea is that the person is looking back on the experience after it is over, and saying that it was wonderful from start to finish).
See more
Caitlin P.

Answered by Caitlin, Spanish tutor with MyTutor


How to make a noun plural

With some exceptions, Spanish nouns tend to follow these rules to become plural: Add s: a)    If the noun ends in a vowel: la casa- las casas (house- houses); el libro- los libros (book- books); el café- los cafés (café- cafes) b)    To most foreign nouns ending in a consonant: el chalet- los chalets; el jersey- los jerseys (jumper- jumpers). Add es: a)    If the noun ends in a consonant other than s: la flor- las flores (flower- flowers); la ciudad- las ciudades (city- cities). b)   If it ends in a stressed vowel followed by s: el inglés- los ingleses (Englishman- Englishmen) When es is added to make a noun plural, any accent on the last vowel of the singular disappears: el melocotón- los melocotones (peach- peaches); But if the singular contains the combination of or aú, the accent is kept in the plural: el país- los países (country- countries); el baúl- los baúles (trunk- trunks). When es is added to a noun ending in z, the z becomes a c in the plural: la cruz- las cruces (cross- crosses). No change: a)    If the noun ends in an unstressed vowel followed by s: la crisis- las crisis (crisis- crisis); el virus- los virus (virus- viruses) b)   For some foreign nouns: el test- los test. Irregular Plurals: Some nouns change their stress in the plural: El carácter- los caracteres (character- characters); el régimen- los regímens (regime- regimes); el/la joven- los jóvenes (young person, young people).
See more
Caitlin P.

Answered by Caitlin, Spanish tutor with MyTutor


Why do I have to add +c when I integrate?

Why do I have to add +c when I integrate?   First of all remember that you only need to include the +c if you are integrating without limits (ie you don’t have the two numbers at the top and bottom of the integration symbol).   To understand why we need the +c when integrating without limits, remember that integrating is the inverse of differentiation. This means that if we differentiate expression A and get back expression B, then we could use integration on B if we wanted to go backwards and figure out what A was originally. Here’s an example:   Expression A -   x2 + 3x + 4   Differentiate A with respect to x to get:   Expression B -   2x + 3   We differentiated A by differentiating each small part of it separately and adding them together at the end. So  x2  differentiated to 2x,  3x  differentiated to  3  and  4  differentiated to  0. Adding these together gives us expression B.   But what if we didn’t know what expression A was and we wanted to use B to figure A out? We could look at the  2x  and know it must have come from  x2  and we could also look at  3  and know that it came from  3x. But how could we figure out that A included a +4 at the end?   The answer is that without having a bit of extra information, we can’t know about the +4. This is because when we differentiate any constant it goes to 0. So any expression that is exactly the same as A but with a different constant would also differentiate to B. This means we can’t know which of these equations was the original. For example the following expressions all differentiate to B:   Expression C -    x2 + 3x + 2   Expression D -   x2 + 3x + 30   Expression E -   x2 + 3x - 5   Expression F -   x2 + 3x   You can see that all expressions that differentiate to B start with  x2 + 3x  and then have a constant added on the end. So when we integrate B we can say that we get  x2 + 3x  “plus an unknown constant”. The +c is just how we write “plus an unknown constant” in a nice mathematical way.   Great, but how can I work out what c actually is?   To work out c you need a little bit of extra information about the original equation (this extra information is sometimes called the initial conditions or boundary conditions but don’t worry if you haven’t heard those terms before). Without this information, working out c is impossible.   Here’s an example of a question you might see in a textbook that asks you to find c:   f’(x) is the function obtained by differentiating f(x) with respect to x, and has the form   f’(x) = 4x + 5      where      f(1) = 10   Work out an expression for f(x) in terms of x.   We integrate f’(x) to get  f(x) = 2x2 + 5x + c. We can then use the extra piece of information  f(1) = 10  to figure out what c is. To do this, we simply substitute x = 1 into the expression we just worked out for f and compare it to what we know f(1) really is:   10 = f(1) = 2(12) + 5(1) + c   If we simplify we get   10 = 2 + 5 + c = 7 + c   Which we rearrange to get  c = 3.   Now we know what c is! To finish the question we write out the full equation for f with our newly found c substituted in:   f(x) = 2x2 + 5x + 3
See more
Owen C.

Answered by Owen, Maths tutor with MyTutor


What is the difference between por and para?

The basic rule is that ‘para’ expresses purpose or destination, and ‘por’ expresses cause or motive. Por In a spatial sense, to mean  ‘around’ or ‘through,’ or to suggest approximate location: a)    Anduvimos juntos por la plaza- we walked around the square together. b)   Pasaron por la calle con armas- they came through the street with guns; tienes que pasar por la túnel si quieres llegar a tu destino- you have to go through the tunnel if you want to arrive at your destination. c)    ¿Por dónde andaba? “No sé. Por aquí, creo.”- whereabouts was he? “I don’t know. Around here I think.” In a temporal sense:  a) to mean ‘in’, but in an approximate manner: Debió ser por mayo- it must have been some time in May Por aquellos días nadie comía nada- in those days nobody was eating anything b) to mean ‘for’, in order to express provisional duration: Estuve en Inglaterra por cuatro meses- I was in England for four months. (Here, ‘durante’ is also possible, or often no preposition at all will be used: Estuve cuatro meses en Inglaterra). Voy a Argentina por (or para) dos semanas- I’m going to Argentina for two weeks. c) to mean ‘in the morning/ afternoon/ evening’, or ‘at night’: Nos vemos por la mañana- we will see each other in the morning Por la tarde me gusta dar un paseo- I like to go for a walk in the evening (por la noche= at night) d)   to express something that is repeated on a regular basis: Salgo con mi novio dos veces por semana- I go out with my boyfriend two times a week Other uses: a)    to mean ‘by means of’: La alarma funciona por rayos infrarrojos- the alarm works by means of infra-red rays; Me enteré por un amigo- I found out by means of (through) a friend. b)   to mean ‘because of’: no pude concentrarme por el ruido- I couldn’t concentrate because of the noise; recibió una multa por aparcar en el centro- he received a ticket for parking in the centre. c)     to express the object/ receiver of a feeling, attitude or mental state: siento mucho cariño por ese chico- I feel a lot of affection for/ towards this boy; nuestro amor por nuestros hijos- our love for our children d)   to mean ‘in exchange for’ or ‘on behalf of’: compró un coche por dos mil euros- she bought a car (in exchange) for two thousand euros; Él dará las clases por mí- he will give the classes on behalf of me. e)    to mean ‘by’ when used in passive constructions: Fue descubierto por una joven de veinte años- it was discovered by a twenty year old girl.    Para In a spatial sense, to express final destination/ direction after verbs of motion: Íbamos para la playa cuando nos encontramos con David y terminamos en su casa- we were heading for the beach when we met David and we ended up in his house. In a temporal sense, to mean a) ‘by’, i.e. a deadline: estaré lista para las cinco- I will be ready by five o’clock; b) ‘for’ a specified period of time in the future: tenemos ropa para tres días- we have enough clothes for three days. To express purpose, object or destination: estudia para ser abogado- he is studying to become a lawyer; este regalo es para ti- this present is for you; una mesa para dos, por favor- a table for two, please. To mean ‘considering’ or ‘in view of’: ha conseguido mucho para lo joven que es- he has achieved a lot considering how young he is. To express opinion: para mí esta asignatura no es muy fácil- in my opinion this subject is not very easy.
See more
Caitlin P.

Answered by Caitlin, Spanish tutor with MyTutor


In Virgil's Aeneid, how far would you agree that Dido was an innocent victim for whom we can feel nothing but sympathy?

Dido, to a limited extent, was an innocent victim whom we should sympathise with. She is powerless to act against the will of the Gods, and the Goddesses Juno and Venus each manipulate her for their personal gain. Furthermore, we are inclined to feel sympathy for the tragic way in which Dido’s life ends. However, her suicide was her own doing and that she felt so driven to take her own life without seeing an alternative is an act can be solely attributed to her. This we cannot feel sympathy for, indeed I would argue that her extreme decision was a mere over-reaction. In addition, Dido broke her own vow to never love again after her husband’s murder in order to ‘marry’ Aeneas. Again, this decision was her own: she chose to act upon the infatuation aroused in her by the Gods, and for this she does not merit sympathy. My argument is that, while to a certain extent Dido was an innocent victim of forces beyond her control, many of the actions that brought about her suicide were her own doing and therefore she is not the victim for whom we can feel only sympathy. In the first instance, we can observe that Dido is manipulated by two Goddesses, each pursuing their own ends. Venus, lacking trust in the welcome given to the Trojans and the promises made by Dido that they will come to no harm, sends her son Cupid down to Earth, disguised as Ascanius, with the aim of causing Dido to fall in love with Aeneas. This shows us that Venus is not concerned with Dido’s wellbeing, only being interested in the safety of her son. This somewhat selfish act is what first causes Dido’s infatuation and, considering Venus’ total disregard of the Carthagian queen’s state; we can feel a degree of sympathy for Dido here and regard her as an innocent victim of the will of forces beyond her control. In addition, a further God seeks to manipulate Juno for her own gain. Juno, who loves Carthage, does not want to see Aeneas found a city prophesised to be greater than Carthage and so seeks a deal with Venus; hiding her true motive, Juno approaches Venus and suggests that Aeneas and Dido are married. Despite being warned by Jupiter that it is not the will of the Fates for Aeneas to settle and remain in Carthage, Venus agrees. This, once again shows a clear disregard of Dido from the Gods, messing with her feelings purely for personal gain. This, Dido is powerless to do anything about and so again we can view her as an innocent victim. Furthermore, we can feel a degree of sympathy in the manner in which Aeneas plans to leave Dido. Considering she truly believes them to be married (though Aeneas is not so convinced), it is fair to say that Aeneas’ initial plan to leave her without a word is harsh at best. To leave her without so much as a goodbye, as Aeneas intends, will not have done anything to ease the pain she will feel and nothing to aid her madness. In this respect also, we can feel sympathy for Dido as an innocent victim. However, in several other ways, Dido is not such an innocent victim. It is her that succumbs to her lust; it is even quoted that she and Aeneas became the ‘slaves of lust.’ This is not the behaviour expected of a queen and does not deserve our sympathy. It is understandable that she is overwhelmed by the love kindled in her by Cupid however to descend into this lustful madness is something she could have avoided. It is not her choice to fall in love with Aeneas but it is her choice to succumb to lust. For her part in this, it is hard to feel sympathy for Dido and we cannot see her as an innocent victim. Additionally, she neglects her city and her people. Out of love for Aeneas, her walls cease to rise and work in her city stops. This is a hugely selfish act and to neglect an entire race of people for one man makes me unable to view her as an innocent victim. As well as this, it appears that Dido is mistaken that her and Aeneas are married. Though they were ‘married’ in the cave with Juno and the fires of heaven witness, Aeneas never regards that moment as a union between the two. He believes them not to be married. While we can say that Dido is indeed a victim of a misunderstanding, it is also true that she could and should have been able to see that Aeneas did not believe them to be married. That she goes on to use this against him is extremely unjust and therefore I cannot describe her as a victim or pity her. Moreover, in falling in love with Aeneas, Dido broke her own vow, not to remarry after the death of her husband. While it may be harsh to deny a widow the chance to remarry, she had previously reproached the advances of many men from neighbouring countries. She had been capable of rejecting men before meeting Aeneas so it is a fair argument that she should have been able to suppress her feelings for Aeneas. She had rejected those who sought her, yet fallen for one who did not once attempt to woo her. Thus again, I do not feel sympathy for Dido or view her as a victim. I also believe that Dido was extremely unreasonable when questioning Aeneas about his leaving. While we can sympathise with her love of Aeneas, that she does not understand his destiny to found a city for his people and his son is very unjust and selfish. She is also unable to compromise and either travel with him or agree to suspend their ‘marriage’ until his return. These are both reasonable courses of action and for her to be ignorant of or unwilling to follow them leads me to be disinclined to feel sympathy for her. Finally, she displays the full extent of her madness when she resorts to suicide. Though she is clearly pained by Aeneas’ leaving, she does not attempt to fight her depression, instead resorting to killing herself. This is a somewhat selfish act, not giving a thought to her people or to her sister Anna. Though she is desperate, suicide should not have been the only course of action she felt able to pursue. Her suicide is the ultimate display of selfishness, cowardice and madness we see from her. Though sad that she sees no other way out, I believe she should have tried to come to terms with losing her ‘husband’ and that her suicide was unnecessary. Therefore I do not feel sympathy for her. In conclusion, I believe that on balance, much of Dido’s madness is her own doing. Though it is impossible to deny that her love for Aeneas is kindled by Gods acting in their own interest who do not particularly care for Dido, it is true that her mad love for Aeneas leads to lust, neglect, selfishness and, invariably, madness. She seems unable to distinguish reason from madness by the culmination of book 4 and this is exemplified by her taking her own life. Therefore, I believe Dido can only be viewed as an innocent victim with whom we should sympathise to a very limited extent.
See more
Michael M.

Answered by Michael, Classical Civilisation tutor with MyTutor


Was religious change the foremost cause of rebellion during the Tudor period, 1485-1602?

Throughout the period 1485-1602, it is evident that there were many causes of rebellion. However, of these factors, it is clear that Religious change, following the schism between Henry VIII’s church of England and the papacy in Rome, became the factor which attracted the largest number of Protestors, zealously Protestant and Catholic alike, from a range of social classes, from the peasantry to nobility. However, it is also important to note that prior to the turning point of the reformation, Religious change did not play any part in causing rebellion, instead this was the issue of Dynastic quarrelling and attempts to remove Henry VII. Later in the era, political faction and ambition became catalysts for rebellion and, perhaps most importantly, socio economic grievances, such as opposition to taxes and the imposition of enclosures. Religious change was undoubtedly a primary motivation of many rebellions in both England and Ireland during the Tudor rule between 1485 and 1603. However, it is arguable that this only became a cause for rebellion after schism between England and the Papacy in Rome and Henry VIII’s decision to name himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, resulting in the Supremacy act being passed in 1534. Undeniably, the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace was the largest rebellion faced by any Tudor Monarch, attracting some 30,000 rebels. It was primarily motivated by ecclesiastical commissioners closing Parish churches and monasteries in the counties of Lancashire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Furthermore, many rebels were against the Supremacy act, and the banner of the five wounds of Christ was paraded, a symbolic defence of Catholicism, and a feat which would later be repeated in the Western rebellion (1549) and the rebellion of Northern Earls (1569). Therefore, the fact that the largest rebellion of all in Tudor England was primarily motivated by religious change indicates that religious change was an incredibly important catalyst for rebellion. Similarly, the Rebellion of Northern Earls wished to restore Catholicism to England by replacing the protestant Elizabeth by ascending Mary Queen of Scots to the throne in her stead. Likewise, the rebels who took part in the Western rebellion rejected the new Book of Common Prayer and William Tyndale’s translation of the bible into English, instead wanting the restoration of Papal images and monasteries. Each of these rebellions again demonstrates the importance of religion as a main cause of rebellion. A further example of zealous religious motivation is evident in Kett’s 1549 rebellion. This was a protest at the slow rate of Protestant expansionism under Edward’s rule, and while it was a Protestant rebellion as opposed to a Catholic rebellion, it does again demonstrate the importance of religious change in causing rebellions. In addition, many of the Irish rebellions were influenced heavily by religious change; from 1532 onwards, the likes of Kildare and Silken Thomas rejected Henrician reforms, and this continued through to 1595 with Hugh O’Neil encouraging this rejection of Protestantism also. Other rebellions, such as Shane O’Neil, also called upon the preservation of Catholicism. This once more shows that religion was a primary causation of rebellion. While religion was clearly a key motivation for many rebels, there were also other dimensions to these uprisings which sparked rebellion. Many of the rebellions previously discussed were multi-causal. Socio-economic factors were evident in several of the religious rebellions across the Tudor period. In the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace, many opposed taxations such as the first fruits and tenths tithe and the proposed white meat tax. Opposition to taxation was also apparent in the Western rebellion 1549, when many rebels rejected the imposition of the Sheep tax. Similarly, both Kett's (1549) rebellion and the Western rebellion were to some extent motivated by hatred of illegal enclosures, this being the primary catalyst for Kett's rebellion and this indicates the importance of an underlying socio-economic motive for the religious rebellions. However, there is some evidence to suggest these issues were not as important as religious issues in sparking rebellion. Kett's 'Demands being in rebellion' contains only three articles protesting against enclosures and taxation. In addition, while there was opposition to the 1534 subsidy act in the Pilgrimage of Grace, in reality, the 1536 subsidy yield of £80,000 was relatively small and affected few people. This implies that while socio-economic factors played a role in causing rebellion, they were significantly less severe than religious motivation and used more as justification for rebellion, rather than as a primary catalyst. A further common factor of religious rebellions was the issue of succession. The Northern Earls (1569) sought to restore Catholicism to England through the means of replacing Elizabeth I with Mary Queen of Scots. Moreover, a large portion of the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Aragonese faction, wished to see Mary Tudor secured in the line of succession as justice for Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. It is no surprise, therefore, that there is an inextricable link between religious and succession rebellions; almost every monarch altered the religion of England upon their ascension to the throne during the Tudor reign, each their own turning point and each leading to rebellion, both over the religious change and other motivations. This indicates that while religion was a main factor in causing rebellion, there are other factors which were at play which cannot be overlooked. Religious change, however, was not evident as a cause for rebellion prior to the turning point of Henry VIII’s reformation. Before his ascension to the throne, his father Henry VII faced seven rebellions, 4 of which were dynastic. These varied in regards to the threat they posed to Henry Tudor’s rule; both Lambert Simnel (1486) and Perkin Warbeck (1497) pretended to be claimants to the throne with a stronger claim than Henry (Simnel the Earl of Warwick while Warbeck pretended to be the duke of York). Both tried to raise Yorkist troops intent on removing the house of Lancaster from the line of the crownas well as garnering aid from abroad, such as Kildare in Ireland. Simnel gained the support of the Earl of Lincoln, nephew of Richard III, strengthening his legitimacy. Both wished to slay the King and take power and, though both were swiftly quelled, the threat they posed was potentially serious. In contrast, the rebellions of Lovel and Stafford both failed to press on with full rebellion; Lovel fled to Flanders while Humphrey, a leader of Stafford’s rebellion was executed after many had deserted. While these two uprisings posed significantly less threat, all four were monocausal, with the primary aim of overthrowing the King. However, post 1530, succession was still a primary motivation; in 1554, rebels under the leadership of Wyatt were worried about Elizabeth’s place in the succession under Mary and likewise the Aragonese faction of the Pilgrimage of Grace wanted to see Mary’s place guaranteed. Similarly, the Northumberland rebellion of 1553 saw rebels wish to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne after the third succession act of 1554 had seen both Mary and Elizabeth restored to the succession line. Therefore, while succession declined in its importance as a factor in causing rebellion as the Tudor claim to the throne was enforced and grew stronger, the presence of succession as a primary motivation was evident throughout the period, whereas religious change only featured after the 1530’s reformation, marking succession as a clear main cause for rebellion before the reformation and in the early Tudor years. Moreover, the influence of political factions as a main cause for rebellion throughout the Tudor period, both in England and Ireland, cannot be ignored. This factor was the primary cause of Shane O’Neil’s multicausal rebellion from 1558-1603 as well as Silken Thomas’ earlier rebellion, both of whom wanted recognition as being the head of their clan by the English monarch. Similarly, the Earl of Essex’s 1601 rebellion shared this motivation, as it was his intention that Elizabeth deposed Robert Cecil and replaced him with Essex himself. In each of these rebellions, we see an intrinsic link between Political Faction and personal ambition sparking people to rebel, demonstrating the multicausal nature of these rebellions. Therefore, particularly towards the end of the Tudor rule, and with the replacement of the old consultations with the Great Council of Nobles, used by Henry VII from 1487-1502, with the new Privy Council used to effectively advise the monarch, political faction became a main cause for rebellion, although this was not to the same extent as Religious change or other factors, such as those which were socio-economic. Indeed, political faction was the catalyst for the fewest rebellions of all causes. Finally, the role of socio-economic factors as a main cause for rebellion in Tudor England cannot be underestimated. Although this causation did not become extremely prevalent until 1549 when 27 counties revolted against illegal enclosures imposed on the lower classes and grievances over taxes such as the subsidy act of the same year and Somerset’s wool tax which motivated the monocausal Kett rebellion of 1549 and in part the Western rebellion, evidence for socio-economic issues being a primary cause of rebellion across the entire Tudor period can be seen. The monocausal Cornish rebellion (1497), Yorkshire (1489) and Amicable Grant (1525) rebellions were all primarily concerned with what they perceived to be unfair taxation to fund wars in Scotland and France and attracted large numbers of protestors, notably 10,000 to the Cornish rebellion. This supports the notion that it was a main cause for rebellion. Equally, the Oxfordshire rebellion of 1596 was monocausal; motivated by opposition to unfair enclosures which exacerbated the high levels of unemployment and rising grain prices as a result of the poor harvest of 1595. Therefore, socio-economic causes were present as either main or contributing causes of rebellion across the entire Tudor Period. Even the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536) cited enclosures and inflation ibn articles 13 and 14 at Pontefract. Economic grievances also appear to have attracted the widest range of social classes in the ‘Great Chain of Being’: for example, the only completely successful rebellion under the Tudor reign, that which opposed Wolsley’s Amicable Grant consisted of Farmers and Tradesmen as well as Politicians, which arguably led to its success. With English rebellions mostly having some socio-economic cause, to either a lesser or greater extent, suggest this was certainly a main cause of rebellion throughout the era; even in Ireland, unfair stealing of land by English plantation owners was cited as a cause of rebellion. In conclusion, it was rebellions motivated by religious change which attracted the largest number of protestors, some 30,000 at the Pilgrimage of Grace, whereby the closing of monasteries and the act of supremacy had been the main motivation for rebels to assemble. However, each of the religious rebellions had other underlying causes, such as ambition and political faction, such as the Aragonese faction to the Pilgrimage of Grace, thus undermining the importance as a main cause of rebellion. Moreover, religious change was not a cause, be it primary or a contributing factor, of any rebellion before the 1530’s, whereas dynastic issues to a lesser extent and to a greater extent economic grievances such as unfair taxation were present in both England and Ireland throughout the Tudor era. I believe it was these socio-economic factors which were the main cause of rebellion throughout the Tudor period, as they affected all parts of society and often gave people the justification to join other partly religious rebellions, which they may not otherwise have joined, therefore indicating that socio-economic factors were the main cause of rebellion in Tudor England, and not religious change, although the importance of this factor still cannot be underestimated.
See more
Michael M.

Answered by Michael, History tutor with MyTutor


How do I link different extracts of texts?

English Literature exams, for the most part, will require some form of cross examination. The A2 examinations demand students rigour in making links between various genres. Making tenuous links such as, "both have a bad guy" (which I have seen done) will not achieve the top marks. How should you go about achieving the top grades when linking two (or more) extracts in an exam situation? This is what I did to achieve full marks:Read through the extracts as thoroughly as possible given the time constraints. Look for similarities in form, character, theme, imagery and narrator. Look for differences in form, character, theme, imagery and narrator. Build an introduction summarising your interpretations and the links that you're going to make, and end with an engaging sentence and a topic sentence easier said than done, but with pracise you'll ace it!For exampleLink 1: Character Link 2: FormLink 3 Theme: How both character and form generate thisConclusionRestate your topic sentence and clarify your overall link, don't begin any new arguments here.Here are some strong connectives which may prove useful: alternatively anyway but by contrast differs from elsewhere even so however in contrast in fact in other respects in spite of this in that respect instead nevertheless on the contrary on the other hand rather though whereasaccordinglyas a resultas exemplified by consequently for example for instance for one thing including provided that since so such as then therefore these include through unless withoutyet Top tip: Do past papers and use these to work out how much time you should spend on each section: analysis, planning, writing. Stick to the timings and you'll do well. Good luck! 
See more
Emily P.

Answered by Emily, English tutor with MyTutor


What is Kant's Categorical Imperative?

The Categorical Imperative was devised by Immanuel Kant to provide a set of requirements a maxim (or motivation) must pass in order for the action to be considered a moral obligation. When a Categorical Imperative is established it becomes one’s moral duty to carry out the action under any circumstances. When carrying out this action, the individual’s primary motive should always be duty according to Kant; this is because we can decipher what our duty is by using our reason. Human’s ability to reason is what deciphers us from animals and so, logically, must be part of being a moral agent. Reason is objective and universal for humanity and so is a reliable and reasonable basis for a moral theory. The Categorical Imperative is determined by referring to three formulations. The first formulation, namely the Formula of the Law of Nature, insists that we should act ‘only according to that maxim’ which could be universalised. This means that we must be able to universalise a principle without contradiction. If this is not possible, we can logically assume that the act is immoral as it is counter to reason. If a rule is not universalisable then others will not be free to act from the same moral principles, and Kant strongly believed that autonomy and freedom were essential to being a moral agent. The second formulation (The Formula of End in Itself) ensures that you never treat others or oneself ‘merely as a means but always as an end’. To use someone merely as a means to some other end is to exploit their rationality, and we should value everyone as rational beings. Lastly, the Formula of a Kingdom of Ends asks for us to ‘act as if a legislating member in the universal Kingdom of Ends’. The Kingdom of Ends is a world in which everyone acts from categorical imperatives, and although we may not live in this world, we must act as if we are. According to this formula we must act on the assumption that everyone will follow the rules you make through your actions. If the intended action passes each of the formulations it is a categorical imperative and thus is not only right, but a moral obligation. 
See more
Stephanie R.

Answered by Stephanie, Philosophy and Ethics tutor with MyTutor


Your difficult questions, answered

Our tutors get asked all sorts of hard questions in their Online Lessons. They use this page to write up the most common questions so you can access them for free.

Wondering how MyTutor works?
Here's a two minute explanation.


How do we connect with a tutor?

Who are the tutors?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

How it works