What is your impression of Mayella Ewell? On what are you basing it? What role does Atticus' questions play in forming this impression?

Mayella Ewell is definitely a young woman deserving of
some pity in To Kill a Mockingbird. She is stuck with an
evil drunkard of a father who beats her and possibly even takes advantage of her
sexually. With her mother dead, she is forced to raise the remainder of the Ewell clan
herself. She has no friends, no money and no prospects for the future. She asks Tom to
come to her house out of loneliness, and she later tells him that she has never been
kissed, so "she might as well kiss a nigger."

Of course,
Mayella is still guilty of framing Tom for her supposed rape. No doubt it was her father
who did the beating after catching her with Tom, but she still bears the responsibility
for going along with the story that her father has concocted. Her fear of her father
left her with little choice.

Are multiparty systems necessarily more representative than the two party system in the United States? why or why not?

For the most part, I would say that they are more
representative, but I would not say that they are necessarily
so.

They are generally more representative because in those
systems, smaller parties can more accurately represent the wishes of their members.  For
example, if we had a "Tea Party Party" in the US, it could accurately represent its
members' attitudes without having to compromise.

However,
in such systems, parties might have a harder time representing people who feel that
there are many important issues.  For example, if we had an anti-abortion party and an
anti-tax party and an anti-environmentalism party, what representation would there be
for people who think all of those are equally important?  Or for those who think that
two of the three are but one is not?

Voters all have
different mixes of issue attitudes and issue salience and even multiparty systems cannot
accurately represent everyone.

One other issue to consider
is that, in a multi-party system, you are often voting for slates of candidates rather
than being able to specifically vote for a given person.  You could say this is less
representative as well.

In what ways does the Party employ technology? Another version of the question: How does technology affect the Party’s ability to control its...

I believe the Party uses technology mainly as a way to
control its citizens.  It does this by using technology for surveillance and for
propaganda.

The main image of technology in
1984 is, to me, the television screen.  These screens are two-way
things that allow some one to watch everyone who has a screen all the time.  We also
know that the Party can plant microphones in various places.  If you never knew when the
Party was watching you or listening to you, I would think that would control you a
lot.

The Party also uses the screens and movies for
propaganda.  It uses them, for example, in the Two Minutes Hate.  This sort of use
affects the way people think.  That helps the Party control them as
well.

Solve the equation x^3-4x^2+6x-4=0, given that l+i is a root of this equation.

We have to solve the equation given that 1+ i is a root of
the equation. As complex roots always come in pairs with their complex conjugate, 1 - i
is also a root of the equation.

So we have (x - (1 + i))( x
- (1 -i))(x - a) = x^3-4x^2+6x-4=0, where the final root is
a

(x - (1 + i))( x - (1 -i))(x - a) =
x^3-4x^2+6x-4=0

=> (x - 1- i)(x - 1 + i)(x - a) =
x^3 - 4x^2 + 6x - 4

=> [(x - 1)^2 - i^2](x - a) =
x^3 - 4x^2 + 6x - 4

=> (x^2 + 1 - 2x + 1)(x - a) =
x^3 - 4x^2 + 6x - 4

=> (x^2 - 2x + 2)(x - a) = x^3 -
4x^2 + 6x - 4

=> x^3 - 2x^2 + 2x - ax^2 + 2ax - 2a =
x^3 - 4x^2 + 6x - 4

=> - ax^2 + 2ax - 2a = -2x^2 +
4x - 4

Equate the numeric term -2a =
-4

=> a =
2

The roots of the equation are (2 , 1 + i ,
1 - i)

How do you think the Soviet Union felt about the United States and its numerous alliance systems?cold war alliance systems

In a word, threatened.  While US policy and that of the
West during the Cold War was one of containment, and didn't threaten the Soviets
directly, you have to remember that Russia had been invaded by Germany twice in the last
half century, so the formation of the NATO alliance with hundreds of thousands of troops
and eventually nuclear weapons made them feel insecure, and rightfully so. They formed
the Warsaw Pact alliance in response to NATO, pure and
simple.

I think the Soviets were less threatened by our
ANZUS alliance (Australia-New Zealand-US) or the alliance with Japan, but it did pose
more of a threat to China and to communist expansion in the region which the Soviets
supported.

What is postcolonial literature?

As the term indicates, the idea of postcolonial literature
is reflective of life after colonial rule in nations that were controlled by parent
nations.  The idea of how life and identity is constructed after colonialism is rich
with ideas, and is a basic element of postcolonial literature.  The genre seeks to
examine how the past influences the present and the future, or, in a more postmodern
sense, how there is not such a clear distinction of time.  The issues of racial identity
plays a large role in postcolonial literature.  At the same time, postcolonial
literature seeks to assess how the identity of nations that are controlled and how the
identity of people in colonized nations could parallel one another.  At the same time,
postcolonial literature is intensely constructed on the idea of what constitutes purity
in one's identity.  For example, in postcolonial literature, the idea of how much of
one's national or individual identity is contingent on the parent nation or the freed
one is extremely important to the genre.

Was the fall of Rome inevitable?

There is tremendous scholarly debate on this very
question; particularly in the last few years. The major factor in the fall of Rome was,
of course, the Barbarian migrations. ("Barbarian" was a term originating with the
Greeks, who said that the language of the German tribes sounding like the sounds of
sheep.) The Roman Empire had grown so large that it's borders were tremendous, and
difficult to patrol. Now, let's muddy the water a bit. In the year 376 (one hundred
years before the end of Empire) the Romans allowed the Goths to cross over to escape
from the oncoming Huns. This in essence opened Pandora's box. The Goths continued to
stream over, and occupied Roman lands. Needless to say, they did not pay Roman taxes,
which reduced the Empire's income. The Huns themselves were a factor. The Romans had a
tenuous relationship with the Huns under Attila, which mainly consisted of the Romans
buying them off.

Then there was internal strife within the
Empire. Roman armies, since Julius Caesar, were loyal to their commander, who typically
(but not always) was the Emperor. (Another little known factor: the Emperor himself was
known as the "Augustus," his successor as the "Caesar.") During a time of dissension,
there were as many as four claimants to the throne, all supported by their troops. Out
of 27 Emperors, only one actually died of natural causes. The others were either
murdered or committed suicide.

To muddy the water even
further; Germanic tribes often fought in the Roman Armies as mercenaries. They often
sided with one General or another, generally with the highest bidder. Finally, when a
General named Orestes installed his son (a feeble minded teenager) as Emperor, (Romulus
II Augustulus) the Germanic General Odoacher put an end to the nonsense by having
Orestes put to death, and forcing Romulus to abdicate. He then forwarded the crown and
purple robe of the Emperor to the Emperor in Constantinople with a letter that he was
the sole Roman Emperor now.

So, the variables would be
internal dissension, Germanic migrations (invasion is probably too strong a word) the
pressure created by the Huns, and the sheer size of the Empire. Could it have been
prevented? Probably, but to do so, the process would have had to be modified at least
100 years before the actual collapse.

Several excellent
sources you might consider: Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell, Death of a
Superpower; and also Christopher Kelly, The End of Empire: Attila
the Hun and the Fall of Rome.