I don't think this is a good question. The first blank could be B / C depends on your perspective.

Opponents of affirmative action by quota, the practice of hiring on the basis of race or sex as well as (i) $\qquad$ , maintain that both the hired and the rejected suffer (ii) $\qquad$ when not judged on their abilities alone.
- Blank (i): The sentence describes hiring based on "race or sex as well as (i) $\qquad$ ". The key phrase is "when not judged on their abilities alone." This implies that the missing word in blank (i) should be something that, along with race and sex, replaces or dilutes the judgment based on abilities. What should ideally be judged when hiring? Competence (or ability). So, if they are not judged on abilities alone, it means other factors like race, sex, and possibly lack of competence (when quotas override merit) are coming into play. Or, more simply, it means competence is still considered, but not solely, because race or sex are also factors. Therefore, competence makes the most sense here. It's the standard against which race/sex is being weighed.
- A. status: While status can influence hiring, "competence" is the direct counterpoint to "abilities alone."
- B. creed: Similar to status, less direct.
- C. competence: This refers to the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. This is precisely what "abilities alone" refers to. The argument is that hiring on the basis of race or sex as well as competence, but not purely on competence/abilities, leads to problems.

- Blank (ii): The sentence states that both the hired and the rejected "suffer" when not judged on their abilities alone. What is the consequence of not being judged fairly based on abilities?
- D. nepotism: This is a specific type of unfair practice (favoring family/friends), not the general suffering.
- E. parity: This means equality, the opposite of suffering.
- F. injustice: This implies unfairness or a violation of rights. When people are not judged solely on their abilities, it can be seen as an injustice to both those more qualified who are rejected and those hired who might be perceived as less qualified.

Therefore, the best fit is:

Blank (i): C. competence
Blank (ii): F. injustice

The completed sentence would read:
Opponents of affirmative action by quota, the practice of hiring on the basis of race or sex as well as competence, maintain that both the hired and the rejected suffer injustice when not judged on their abilities alone.

Let me know if you need further assistance.

Thanks