In which sentence is the pronoun whom correctly used? she is the one whom will be throwing the party. whom would you like to invite to the party? do you know whom will be going to the party? whom will drive me to the party?

The answer is indeed "Whom would you like to invite to the party?"

"Whom" cannot be used as the subject of a sentence. That is exactly what happens in the other options. They would be correct if "whom" were replaced by "who":

1. She is the one who will be throwing the party. ("who" is the subject of "will be throwing")

3. Do you know whom will be going to the party? ("who" is the subject of "will be going")

4. Who will drive me to the party? ("who" is the subject of "will drive")

In the sentence "Whom would you like to invite to the party?", "whom" is not acting as the subject for the verbs, but as their object. The subject is, actually, "you".

i would like to compare these two interpretations of the crucible : 1) eric christ's interretation and wade bradford's interpretation. the main differences between there interretaions is that in the first one you can notice direct link to joseph mccarthy whereas the second one represents how the town is filled with hysteria.the second interpretation shows that author believes that the story   about puritan town in salem is based on actual events while the first example shows the sencible reference to sort of bias.

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this