When is resourcefulness shown in The Silver Sword?

Survival during a war requires resourcefulness for all parties involved. The ability to be adaptable and to find material, practical, and emotional assistance is especially necessary for the children in The Silver Sword. Ruth and her siblings somehow must survive in Warsaw when their parents are taken away. Edek defends their home by shooting at the soldiers and frees his sisters. After they leave home, they find a place to stay in a ruined house, and Edek scrounges for food. Ruth’s idea of starting a school is especially resourceful because it reminds the students that there is more to life than the material discomforts they endure, and it offers optimism for the future.
Jan’s resourcefulness proves central to the plot, because when he meets Joseph, he immediately sees that the silver sword is a resource. Although it was likely not his intention, the deal he makes with Joseph to employ it in searching for Joseph’s children proves part of Jan’s resourceful behavior; when he finds them, they become a new family to him.

Explain the image of the fading coal on page 449; "The greatest poet even cannot say it: for the mind in creation is as a fading coal which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory brightness, this power arises from within, like the colour of a flower which fades and changes as it is developed, and the conscious portions of our natures are unprophetic either of its approach or its departure." (The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 10th edition. "Defense of Poetry" by Percy Shelley)

"A Defence of Poetry" is an essay written by English dramatist and poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. Although he wrote the essay in 1821, it was published posthumously in 1840 as a part of a collection titled Essays, Letters from Abroad, Translations and Fragments.
Essentially, "A Defense of Poetry" concerns exactly what the title suggests; Shelley defends the production of poetry from critics who consider it an inessential art. Shelley wrote the essay as a response to a piece published in 1820, titled "The Four Ages of Poetry," written by his friend Thomas Love Peacock, an English poet and novelist. He wrote to Peacock explaining how his analysis and criticism of poetry was inaccurate. Shelley also wrote to Peacock's publishers, who were—amusingly—his own publishers, concerning the essay. Therefore, he was inspired to write an essay of his own—taking the opposite stance.
Interestingly enough, however, Shelley didn’t write a full and thorough defense of poetic form; instead, he focused on the philosophical aspect of it. He explains the admirable complexity of the poet's thought processes, the role and relevance that the poet has in society, and the impact he or she can have on literature.
Thus, at one point, Shelley compares the mind of the poet to a "fading coal," writing:

The greatest poet even cannot say it; for the mind in creation is as a fading coal, which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory brightness; this power arises from within, like the color of a flower which fades and changes as it is developed, and the conscious portions of our natures are unprophetic either of its approach or its departure.

With this quote, Shelley alludes to the power of poetic inspiration. He believed that all poets write poetry in order to reach out to the deepest parts of the human soul, that poetry stimulated the reader's emotions, thoughts, and senses. He doesn’t say that the poet's work is underappreciated, but he suggests that the poets themselves are not aware of the beauty that they create nor the power that they hold when writing poetry.
By comparing the mind of the poet to the image of a fading coal, Shelley argues that poets do not rely on "will power" and "determination," as is the case with logic or reason; instead, they focus on the beauty of everything and everyone in nature. Thus, they have no control over when or how inspiration will strike. Shelley argues that poetry is human, and its composition is basically uncontrollable. In fact, the poet’s most inspiring and creative moments never strike when they begin writing:

the most glorious poetry that has ever been communicated to the world is probably a feeble shadow of the original conceptions of the poet.

This is why poets cannot determine or guarantee the effect or the success their work will have when they publish it. Shelley, however, believes that this is what makes them the "unacknowledged legislators of the world." For him, poetry is divine and holds the answer to the meaning of the universal truth, and the language of the poets is the only reliable way of understanding it.
You can find Shelley's full essay here.

Sample science project on what type of paper airplane flies the farthest?

Numerous factors affect the distance that a “paper airplane” will fly. The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) discusses the characteristics of any “glider,” or any aircraft without an engine. NASA notes that an engine provides “thrust,” which an aircraft without any engine does not have. The other three forces that act on an aircraft are the same: “lift,” “drag,” and “weight.”
Every aspect of the paper airplane’s materials and construction affects the physics of flight. Factors include the kind and weight of the paper, the size of the sheet, and the number and types of folds. Guinness World Records lists the current world’s record as 69.14 meters (226 feet, 10 inches).
One way to consider the project is through the definition of distance. What “flies the farthest” can relate both to the definition of “flight," or the total distance the aircraft remains aloft, and of “farthest,” or the distance from the location from which the plane was launched to the landing point. Recent attention to these variables, including dropping a paper glide from a balloon, another airplane, or even the International Space Station, has occupied scientists and designers, including origami specialists in Japan.
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-ultimate-paper-airplane-51433308/

Did Grover Cleveland become president twice? How?

Grover Cleveland did indeed become President of the United States on two separate occasions. His first term of office was from 1885 to 1889; his second was from 1893 to 1897.
Cleveland's first election victory was largely the result of weariness with the Republican Party, which had occupied the presidency since Abraham Lincoln first took office in 1861. Successive Republican Administrations had been mired in corruption, and their candidate in the 1884 election, James G. Blaine, did little to dispel the reputation of the GOP as the party of sleaze.
Cleveland, on the other hand, had an unimpeachable reputation as a redoubtable opponent of corruption, a reputation he'd gained from his short but successful stint as Governor of New York. This was clearly a big factor in his election victory. Blaine also made the big mistake during the campaign of alienating Catholic voters, who were becoming increasingly important in the large cities of the East and Midwest.
In 1888, however, it was a different story; Cleveland was narrowly defeated by his Republican opponent, Benjamin Harrison. Throughout the campaign, Cleveland was hampered by his support for free trade, which was generally unpopular with American business and industry. Harrison's support for maintaining the tariff allowed him to pick up the votes of many Northern Democrats, disaffected as they were by Cleveland's stance on the tariff.
Nevertheless, Cleveland managed to stage a remarkable comeback four years later. Elected to the Presidency for the second time, he benefited from a split in his opponents' ranks. As well as the Republicans, Cleveland faced the Populist Party, which took votes from the GOP in Midwestern and Western states such as Kansas and Nevada, respectively. Though a clear winner in the Electoral College, Cleveland actually won fewer votes than his Republican and Populist opponents combined. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable victory, the last that the Democrats would enjoy at the presidential level for another twenty years.

Why was the angel in Peyalo and Elisenda's backyard?

The Old Man appears to be in Peyalo's courtyard because he fell from Heaven. People believe he's an angel. That belief is never confirmed, but he's some type of supernatural creature. There's no specific reason given in the story for why he chose that place to land. It may have been random.
When the Old Man appears, Peyalo thinks that he might be a sailor at first. However, they come to realize and accept that he's an angel. The Old Man doesn't fit any of their ideas of what angels should be. Instead, he's a mess. He's dirty, his miracles don't make sense, and his wings are strange.
He stays for years and his presence makes the family rich. He's also an annoying presence though. He's clumsy and barges in around the house and doesn't speak to them in a way that makes sense. He's an invalid who one day, as randomly as he arrived, flies away into the distance.

The old man with enormous wings is generally thought to be an angel who's been kicked out of heaven. This is because of his dirty, shabby demeanor, and the strange language that he speaks and which no one can understand. (Norwegian, to be sure.)
If you're familiar with the story of Satan, you'll know that he too was once an angel, cast down from heaven for defying God. But there's nothing Satanic about the old man; he's actually quite angelic, appropriately enough. He may speak Norwegian instead of Latin, and he certainly can't dance on the end of a pin, but he does seem to have the ability to perform miracle cures, so that's something. And as the title of the story suggests, he does have incredibly large wings. So although Father Gonzaga, the village priest, may be more than a tad skeptical, most of the villagers are convinced that they have a real life angel in their midst, and gladly part with their hard-earned money to pay for the privilege of seeing him.

In the evidential problem of evil, the argument starts from: perhaps it is possible for God and Evil to co-exist, but it is not possible for there to be both. If U3 evil exists then it indicates O3 god doesn't exist. The argument has several propositions: An O3 God would eliminate all U3 evil. There appear to be instances of U3 evil. The best explanation of this evidence is that an O3 God doesn't exist. If H is the best explanation of E, then H is probably true. So, it's likely that an 03 God doesn't exist. Is this argument compelling? A. Yes, the argument is cogent and provides a theist with a good reason to doubt that God exists. B. No, the argument isn't abductively strong.C. No, the argument is abductively strong, but one or more of the premises are false (or at least not plausible to a theist).D. No, the argument isn't abductively strong and one or more of the premises are false. Which one is correct and why?

In the universe God is not the only one. He created evil. He casts his own son Lucifer to Hell. There must be a balance between Divine and Evil. Not to forget that His son was a former angel. If there was only God , who would know what life would be without evil things. If there would be evil, it would be total caos as no one would fight for good.

I think that one of the basic premises—that God would eliminate all evil—is flawed.
This requires several leaps which are not addressed in your supports. First, it requires a knowledge of God's intent, which is impossible. All gods throughout history have been acknowledged to have thoughts higher than mankind, and humans have accepted that they cannot know the will of God as they exist in physical separation. To therefore assert from a human standpoint that God would definitely make any decision is an unsupported assertion.
The very definition of "evil" also defines some moral code not addressed in your arguments. If humans accept certain behavior as "evil," who has defined the ultimate moral code? What is evil? And for whom? When were these moral laws established? For what purpose? This is also not evident in the support that follows.
What about the argument that if a world without evil existed God would then be forced to then create humans as puppets with no free will or choice? If God's hand sweeps down to remove evil from the world, He therefore also creates humans who are forced to behave in a certain way. Perhaps it is the free choice inherent in this creation that allows for humans themselves to create both beauty and disaster: both love and suffering. This is also missing from your argument.
And finally, an argument not addressed is that God hasn't eliminated all evil yet. Perhaps this is an event yet to come.
I think the argument falls flat because of too many unsupported leaps made in the initial assertion. (The H and E references didn't come through in your question, but I would say that 1 is weak and then 3 therefore isn't a clear support as there are other pieces of evidence that would disqualify the "best explanation.")

Is Kino a victim or villain?

While one could certainly argue that Kino's greed, violence, and stubborn attitude make him a villain, Steinbeck portrays him more as a victim in the novella. Kino is an oppressed indigenous man who lives in a segregated society and is discriminated against by the ruling European colonists. When Kino initially discovers the Pearl of the World, he dreams of a better life for his family and imagines Coyotito sitting at a school desk and getting an education. Kino desperately wishes for his son to become literate and desires a beautiful wedding ceremony for his wife. Kino's dreams are admirable and unselfish. He simply wishes to have a normal, content life and enjoy the privileges that are reserved solely for the white colonists living in town. After the corrupt pearl dealers try to take advantage of him, Kino is driven to violence and acts out in self-defense whenever he is attacked. The pearl can be regarded as an extension of Kino's humble dreams, which is why he stubbornly refuses to get rid of it. Kino's insistence on making a better life for his family and his wishes to rise above his social status depict him as a determined, selfless man. Unfortunately, the prejudiced society prevents Kino from attaining a better life, and his refusal to let go of his dreams results in tragedy. Overall, one could make the argument that Steinbeck portrays Kino as more of a victim than a villain because of his humble dreams and the unfortunate circumstances he strives to overcome.

When The Pearl is presented as a parable (a simple story that teaches a moral lesson), readers are sometimes led to the conclusion that Kino is a villain in this story. He is corrupted by greed and is punished for wanting too much. He abuses his wife and his power in his quest for wealth. Because of these things, we tend to believe that the moral of the story is that we should be content with what we have. Kino's transformation into an animalistic monster is the final blow. However,
What is wrong with wanting a better life?
Isn't Kino a victim of other people's greed?
Isn't Kino a hero for trying to challenge the unfair rules that are used to oppress him and the people of his village?
Does Kino fail at selling the pearl and bettering his life because he is a bad person or does he fail because the rules are rigged against him?
I would argue that Kino is actually not a villain but rather a victim. Steinbeck's writing shows that Steinbeck admires the ambition of those on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. We could argue that Kino is only violent in self-defense and for the preservation of his family.