What is unusual about Tock in The Phantom Tollbooth?

The most unusual thing about Tock the bio-mechanical watchdog is that he can only make a ticking sound.
This is not how things were supposed to turn out. When Tock's parents gave birth to him, they already had a clock puppy called Tick. They gave him this name in the hope that he'd make a ticking sound. But when they wound him up they found that he could only go "tock." So they figured out that if they had another child, they would name him Tock, in the hope that this time they'd have a pup that would make the correct sound.
It didn't work like that, however, and so Tick and Tock's parents have ended up with two pups, neither of whom can make the right sound: Tick can only tock, whereas Tock can only tick.

It is argued that public policy reflects public opinion. Do you agree with this statement? Please explain your answer.

On its surface, this statement does seem logical, and of course, many legislators wish to satisfy their constituents when drafting policy. The problem with such a simple statement is that it doesn't allow for the complexity of this issue. It also ignores a central dilemma: public policy will never be able to fully reflect public opinion because public opinion is diverse.
It cannot even be said that public policy reflects the majority public opinion. For example, many polls reflect that the majority of Americans are in favor of moderate gun safety reform laws, but the laws have tended to remain entrenched and unchanged. This is partly due to powerful lobbying on the part of gun manufacturers and the NRA. Public policy is a combination of a response to public opinion and to political agendas and lobbying efforts.

Consider the French decision to declare war on Prussia in 1870. What was the strategic balance (or imbalance) between the two at the time?

The Franco-Prussian War was launched when France was under the rule of Emperor Napoleon III (nephew to Napoleon I) and Prussia was under the political leadership of Bismarck and William I. During this period, both countries were actively trying to expand their political influence, with Prussia the more successful of the two (given that these maneuvers would ultimately result in the creation of a unified Germany).
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte proclaimed himself Emperor of France in 1852, during which time he oversaw a period of extensive economic growth. Meanwhile, he actively sought to expand France's presence in Europe and the world. In 1859, he aligned with Piedmont-Sardinia in waging war against Austria and soon afterwards began imperial adventures in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. An attempt to extend French influence into Mexico (by supporting would-be Emperor Maximilian) ended in disaster.
Meanwhile, under William I and Otto Van Bismarck, Prussia sought to expand its influence within the German states (which at this time still constituted a Confederation rather than a unified country). By winning the Austro-Prussian War, Prussia was able to consolidate its claim as German hegemon, resulting in a new confederation under Prussian leadership. As Prussia became more powerful, it also became more threatening to French political interests and national security.
The trigger for the Franco-Prussian War came when Spanish Queen Isabella II was deposed, with Hohenzollern Prince Leopold (of the same dynasty ruling Prussia) one of the claimants to the throne. The idea of a Hohenzollern ruling Spain was a threat France could not afford to let pass, as it would have risked being caught between Prussia on one side and Spain on the other, a potential crisis in the making. Bismarck, already looking for any excuse to fight France on his own terms, was able to use this diplomatic crisis to draw France into a disadvantageous war.
From a purely military angle, the Franco-Prussian War was a disaster for the French, and Germany had already occupied parts of France before the French army had even been able to begin rallying a defense. However, less often discussed are the diplomatic maneuvers through which Bismarck was able to isolate the French diplomatically.
As mentioned earlier, in 1859 Napoleon III allied with Piedmont-Sardinia to wage war with Austria. Austria had not forgotten or forgiven this move. Napoleon III had likewise alienated his former ally in Italy. Meanwhile, in 1866, France attempted to pressure Prussia into allowing France to annex Luxembourg and Belgium, which Bismarck later publicized, thus ensuring British neutrality. Meanwhile, in 1863, Bismarck actively assisted the Russians in suppressing a revolt in Poland, giving him diplomatic goodwill from Russia. As a result, when war began between France and Prussia, France found itself without allies. What ensued was overwhelming military defeat, leading to the collapse of Napoleon III's Second Empire (which was quickly replaced by the Third Republic) on the one hand and the unification of Germany on the other.
Citation Note: in preparing this answer, I drew upon John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Present (Third Edition). New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Details concerning the rise of Prussia through to the Franco-Prussian War (including Bismarck's diplomatic maneuvering to isolate France) were found in pages 660–668. Likewise, information concerning the Second Empire (both economic and diplomatic/political in theme) spanning from Louis Napoleon's coup d'etat in December, 1851, through to the Franco-Prussian War could be found in pages 725–731. It is in the latter of these two sections that one finds French concerns vis-a-vis the Spanish monarchy as well as a more detailed account of the war itself.

Death is represented differently in the following three literary works: Macbeth by William Shakespeare, "The Sniper" by Liam O’Flaherty, and "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson. How is it represented in each and why is it important? Please respond in a long essay, using specific evidence from the literary works.

I am not allowed to craft an essay for you; however, I can help you get started in the right direction. The first thing that you have to do is create a viable thesis statement. Most papers that ask for some kind of literature examination are asking the student to make some kind of argument about the piece or pieces and prove it through textual evidence. The writing prompt that you have been given appears to be steering you toward an essay that contrasts the three different literary works. That should be quite possible based on those three works. Since the essay is likely going to contrast the three works, I would use a two-sided thesis statement. The following is an example of something that you might consider using.
"Although Macbeth, 'The Sniper,' and 'The Lottery' all thematically feature death as a main theme, each story is unique in what it shows readers about death."
If the above thesis (or something similar) is your working thesis, then I would recommend the first supporting paragraph explain to readers how each story features death. The thesis statement claims all three pieces are thematically similar in that regard, so you need to prove to your reader that that is actually the case.
After that comparison paragraph, move into the breakdown of the individual literary works. Use at least one paragraph per piece. The goal is to show readers how each piece is unique and distinct in its representation of death. The order that you discuss each story in does not matter. For Macbeth, I would focus on how the deaths are mainly a result of murder. There are a few deaths that result from combat, but I believe those are secondary in importance for the play. For Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, murder is a means to an end. They both let uncontrolled ambition overpower any kind of moral compass that they each have. You might consider how Lady Macbeth and Macbeth react differently to the murders. For Macbeth, the first murder is the hardest. After Duncan's death, audiences never see Macbeth morally struggle as much as he did over killing his king. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth falls deeper and deeper into guilty despair over Duncan's death and the increasing body count. Using death as a means to an end isn't only confined to Macbeth. Killing Macbeth is used to set the kingdom back on the right path.
"The Sniper" has a different usage and representation of death. The deaths that the reader sees are a result of wartime combat. The sniper kills his targets because he is at war with an enemy, but he also kills his targets in order to save his own life. He can't have any of the three characters report his position. That would spell certain death for him.

Morning must not find him wounded on the roof. The enemy on the opposite roof covered his escape. He must kill that enemy and he could not use his rifle.

While the death of the other characters is a means to an end (he can escape), the killings are not premeditated like they are in Macbeth. The sniper is in the middle of a civil war, and it would be unfair to accuse him of murder like you could Macbeth.
In my opinion, "The Lottery" is the hardest of the stories to come to terms with. Combat killing is one thing. A corrupt character who murders is a different thing, but both possess motivations that can be understood by readers. "The Lottery" presents readers with a death that simply shouldn't make sense to us. Tessie is stoned to death by a mob of people doing nothing more than following a tradition that at least some of them question the appropriateness of.

"They do say," Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, "that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery."

Tessie's death just shouldn't happen. Surely the wisdom of the group will see error in stoning somebody to death for picking the wrong item out of a box. That doesn't happen, and Tessie is killed in order to show readers the dangers of blindly following tradition for the sake of tradition. I think "The Lottery," more than the other stories, has the power to make readers do a serious self-examination. We can comfort ourselves by knowing we don't have to kill because we are not in combat, and we can assure ourselves that we would never be so morally corrupt as to commit murder; however, we do seriously wonder if we would give in to the mob mentality that "The Lottery" shows us.

What is an analysis of "We Are Americans Now, We Live in the Tundra"?

"We Are Americans Now, We Live in the Tundra" is a poem by Marilyn Chin, first published in 1987. The poem is narrated, in the first person, from the perspective of an immigrant in America, who has ambivalent attitudes toward the country they came from, China, and the country, or city they now live in.
The opening lines, "Today in hazy San Francisco, I face seaward / Toward China," capture the sense that the speaker is caught between two places. They are physically in San Francisco but a part of them longs to be back in China.
The narrator describes China, metaphorically, as "a giant begonia," a plant found in the southern hemisphere. The begonia often produces colorful, beautiful flowers and so in this instance may symbolize the beauty of China from the narrator's perspective. However, in the next stanza, the narrator describes the begonia as "Pink, fragrant, bitten / By verdigris and insects." The implication is that the beauty the narrator associates with China is compromised, or to a degree spoiled, as the beauty of a flower might be spoiled by the bites of insects.
The narrator's new home, San Francisco, is described as "the tundra / Of the logical, a sea of cities, a wood of cars." A tundra is an area of land characterized by very low temperatures, in which only very hardy vegetation like shrubs, grasses and mosses will grow. Describing San Francisco as "a tundra / Of the logical," therefore, implies that it is an inhospitable place, and perhaps a place where the rational is not allowed to flourish. The subsequent two metaphors, "a sea of cities, a wood of cars," implies that the natural environment in San Francisco has been overtaken by the symbols of industrial and technological progress, namely "cities" and "cars."

What is Providence and how does it conquer Fortune? How does it solve the anxiety and despair problem?

In a sense, the difference between Fortune and Providence is one's point of view. Human beings, with a limited perspective based on living within time and seeing only a small part of the universe's temporal and spatial extent, see life as dominated by Fortune, things which happen by chance rather than being part of a greater plan. Humans also see time sequentially, as one event happening after another, and only have knowledge of events as such sequences unfold. Fate or Fortune is part of the material world that is perceived by the senses.
God sees the world quite differently. He perceives everything, no matter where or when it is located, as part of a seamless whole. The whole is Providence, a perfect design that God sees in its entirety outside of space and time.
People succumb to anxiety and despair because of bad Fortune or because individual events appear unpleasant or painful. From the viewpoint of Providence, though, all things are part of a universal plan by a benevolent God. Thus, rather than reacting with fear and anxiety to bad Fortune, humans should understand that what may appear painful might be like vaccination or surgery—something temporarily unpleasant but part of a greater good. By use of human reason, one can begin to understand the world providentially.

Was Orwell a victim or oppressor?

In a sense, he's both. He's an oppressor in that he's a colonial police officer, a cog in the machine of British imperialism. His job entails the maintenance of order and stability in this far-flung corner of the Empire. If any of the indigenous people should step out of line and challenge their colonial overlords, he'll be required to mete out condign punishment to the transgressors.
At the same time, Orwell is a victim of the very system he serves. In "Shooting an Elephant," his duty as a colonial police officer forces him to act against his better instincts. He doesn't want to shoot the elephant, but he feels an overwhelming burden of expectation bearing down on his shoulders, both from his superiors and from the indigenous Burmese, who expect him to deal with such fraught situations in an orderly manner.