will you give me a 'yes' if i say

a) the 1905 rev was inevitable (ie the rev was not the making of Nicholas II) and

b ) the victory of the Bolsheviks in (OCt) 1917 was inevitable (ie their enemies were too weak to seize power)?

Actually, Siwayun, I wouldn't agree with either premise.
The 1905 Revolution was by no means inevitable, and - although a revolution might have happened eventually - probably wouldn't have happened if Nicholas hadn't lost the war with Japan.
And the 1917 Bolshevik seizure of power was actually surprising - that so small a minority should seize power was far rom inevitable.

Part of your problem might be how you are defining the word 'inevitable', which I take to mean 'certain', 'unstoppable'.

Your other problem is that you are 'answer-grabbing' - you are wanting History to provide you with certain truths.
In fact, both these premises are 'theses' - ideas/assertions.
If they come up at GCSE, it will be as part of a debate question.
Because there are points both ways.
And you will answer them like this:

Section 1 - (thesis) - all the facts and ideas which seem to support the idea.
Section 2 - (antithesis) - start with the word 'HOWEVER' in capitals, then put all the facts and ideas which seem to contradict the idea.
Section 3 - (synethesis) - start with the ohrase 'IN CONCLUSION THEREFORE' and come to a decision, which will be either one way or the other, or a new solution which take account of both arguments, citing a new fact and an argument to support your conclusion.

I agree with you. I think though there were favourable condidtions for the outbreak of 1905 Rev (autocracy of Tsardom or we can put it the underlying causes) and the eventual seizure of power by the Bolshevik (the weaknesses of both the Provisional Govt and other political groupings), we still cant jump to a conclusion and say that they are 'inevitable' (I am sharing the same defintion with you)

Thanks for your detailed answer!