BeeKay wrote:
Carcass wrote:
Privatizing the system for the future recipients, while gradually (iii) ______ the system for current and near-term recipients, is probably the best way to keep the system viable.
As per the meaning is exactly the contrary.
You do need a new system. As such, you have to eliminate or phase out the old one.
Hope now is more clear
For blank 2, Why are we not choosing AGGRAVATED ?
Because does not have any sense.
We do have a shift in the argument: BEFORE the fund did meet the expectations, NOW no more. So the situation is contrary or reversed.
If was aggravated the line of reasoning was more or less in that manner: the fund was not able to meet the expectations of 10% of the subscribers. However, now the quote arose up to 75%
We , here, have a shift from good to worse. Aggravated would be from so so to worse.
Hope this helps