1) Explanation

Let's break down the sentence blank by blank, understanding the core argument about the "fundamental paradox of democracy" - the conflict between security and public approval (consent).
- Blank (i): "Democracies around the world have found themselves struggling to tailor domestic security policies to fit the bill for both tight security and public approval ratings. This brings to light what political theorist Larry Diamond calls a fundamental paradox of democracy: the conflicting need for both (i) $\qquad$ and consent."
- The paradox is explicitly stated as balancing "tight security" and "public approval ratings."
- "Consent" directly aligns with "public approval ratings."
- Therefore, blank (i) must align with "tight security." What does "tight security" aim for? It aims to be successful in protecting the nation.
- A. effectiveness: The degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result. This perfectly fits the goal of "tight security."
- B. serendipity: The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. This is irrelevant to policy needs.
- C. aspersion: A derogatory remark or accusation. This is also irrelevant.

Thus, Blank (i) is A. effectiveness.

- Blank (ii): "Democratic governments, because they are popularly elected, are inclined to adjust to popular opinion regardless of the actual merit of policies. Following 9/11, there was a significant public outcry for more stringent national security measures. However, as the jarring impact of the $9 / 11$ attack becomes more muted with time, more people are (ii) $\qquad$ having their own privacy compromised for the sake of (iii) $\qquad$ goal."
- Initially, after 9/11, people wanted "more stringent national security measures." This implies they accepted privacy compromises.
- However, as the "jarring impact" of 9/11 "becomes more muted with time," public opinion is shifting. People are now doing something about their "privacy compromised." This means they are likely rejecting or opposing this compromise.
- D. repudiating: Refusing to accept or be associated with; denying the truth or validity of. This fits the idea that people are now rejecting or no longer supporting the compromise of their privacy.
- E. redressing: Remedying or setting right (an undesirable or unfair situation). While related to correcting a wrong, "redressing" usually refers to taking action to correct past injustices. The context here is about people's current stance on having their privacy compromised as the initial urgency fades. "Repudiating" captures the change in opinion more accurately.
- F. jeopardizing: Putting (someone or something) into a situation in which there is a danger of loss, harm, or failure. This doesn't make sense in context; people aren't jeopardizing their privacy being compromised; they are objecting to it.

Thus, Blank (ii) is D. repudiating.

- Blank (iii): "more people are repudiating having their own privacy compromised for the sake of (iii) $\qquad$ goal."
- Why are people now repudiating privacy compromise? Because the "jarring impact" of the $9 / 11$ attack is "muted with time." This means the immediate, tangible threat or the clear necessity of the security measures might seem less urgent or less defined. The goal, once concrete, now feels less so.
- G. an ebullient: Cheerful and full of energy. This describes a mood, not a characteristic of a goal.
- H. discursive: Moving from subject to subject; rambling. This describes speech or writing, not a type of goal.
- I. an abstract: Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence; theoretical. If the immediate threat is "muted," the goal of blanket security might now seem less concrete and more theoretical or distant. This fits the shift in perception.

Thus, Blank (iii) is I. an abstract.

Putting It Together:
"Democracies around the world have found themselves struggling to tailor domestic security policies to fit the bill for both tight security and public approval ratings. This brings to light what political theorist Larry Diamond calls a fundamental paradox of democracy: the conflicting need for both effectiveness and consent. Democratic governments, because they are popularly elected, are inclined to adjust to popular opinion regardless of the actual merit of policies. Following 9/11, there was a significant public outcry for more stringent national security measures. However, as the jarring impact of the $9 / 11$ attack becomes more muted with time, more people are repudiating having their own privacy compromised for the sake of an abstract goal."

This completes the coherent argument about the shifting public perception and the inherent paradox.