When you start to tackle a TC question for the GRE exam during your practice routine OR during your real exam the thing does not change, at all: you first and primary goal is to follow a clear strategy.

• Divide the sentence, especially the longest one, into chunks. Sentence by sentence. Analyze them with a brief brainstorming on the real meaning of these sentence on its own and in context, as a whole.
• Doing so, scanning incessantly and immediately, faster than a lightning, for clues scattered here and there along the entire statement in front of you.
• Grasp the overall meaning. Do not waste time hovering a single word. Understand the BIG picture. After all, a Caravaggio's painting is beautiful in its entirety, even though the particulars are amazing and punch you in the face like a fist from nowhere, so much they have beauty.
• Do not be intimidated by the length of sentence or because is convoluted. Do not try to digest in one breath. Dissect it and move slowly but with determination, at an atomic level. Aggressive.

So, let move on and see what the first sentence brings us.

The more deeply one delves into the relevant literature, the more apparent it becomes that psychoanalysis is a practice (i) ___________.

From this first sentence. I do not have so many clues about. The only thing I know is that the more you analyze deeply and consequently have a major understanding of literature (by the way is not specified which kind of), it sounds more like a general statement, an introduction. However, suddenly is specified that PS is a practice (i) ______

Here, I am not quite sure the 3 blanks represent. So, my strategy is to go ahead with the next sentence. Often, when we do not have a grasp of what is going on is better to go ahead and see the big picture what brings in.

Even tenets that some might deem (ii) __________ to the general philosophy, such as the notion that the human psyche is primarily governed by conflicting desires and is formed in large part by early childhood experiences, are by no means accepted as gospel, even by some of its most (iii) ___________.

Oh wowww, the thing is getting even worse. A long sentence with two blanks. before I reach the end of this sentence I am already lost.

Wait, hold on: this is an important tip: whenever the things is getting more convoluted than easy, stop. Focus on, being even more aggressive and do not give up. In this particular case, divide the long sentence in even small chunks.

Even tenets that some might deem (ii) __________ to the general philosophy

This part of the sentence does not help me that much, and I am already to the second blank without clues. Not a big deal. But keep going, every TC in this exam must have a sort of starting point from what I must understand something and work on to arrive at a consistent conclusion.

such as the notion that the human psyche is primarily governed by conflicting desires and is formed in large part by early childhood experiences,

here we go, the part of the sentence that gives us an example or shows us with a clear paragon what philosophy or psychology or whatever it is we are talking about is here. Spot on.

The notion of the psyche (which is our mind, our human soul, our spirit) is made and governed by our desires which clash AND is forged by our early experiences during childhood. Amazing. Now everything is becoming clear.

are by no means accepted as gospel, even by some of its most (iii) ___________.

The aforementioned notion is not uniquely accepted, it not a gospel which means not ALL believe that is true or in other words: it is not a credo. it is not a truth accepted 100% neither by those who are at the pinnacle in this field: for instance the most prominent scientists. As such.

esteemed beneficiaries beneficiaries are who has some benefit from something. here we are talking about that someone does not believe in a notion. Eventually, he/she disagrees. Cross off

quarrelsome factions I do not know the meaning of quarrelsome but fractions are a part of a group of persons. It does not seem a good fit.

seasoned practitioners Perfect. part of people that are expert in this field do not believe that notion as a credo or gospel and at the same time, we do know that we are talking about by some of its most which mean prominent scientists or thinkers. This sis the third blank. Must be the answer.

Now everything is more clear to me.

Going back to the 2nd blank. We do know that something that is important, very important to the argument is not believed by part of the thinkers as critical as it seems. Bingo. Yess

We do already have our prediction based on the meaning

critical here we go. it must be the 2nd blank. Perfect fit

immaterial No good. I have already my answer and immaterial has nothing to do to our notion.

anathema I do not know what that means but I do know that is not the answer.

Looking back even further at the 1st blank.

We do know that this phrase actually conveys this meaning: the more we go deeper in a certain argument, the more conflict opinions arise. That is the sense of the sentence. Bearing in mind what we know

devoid of substance I do not know what this blank is saying to me but it reminds me of: avoid and substance. However, here we are saying that a notion is not unanimously accepted nothing suggests to me of a substance. Cross off

rife with contention This suggests me about a contention. mhhh very tough but the contention is a dispute or a controversy. we do not have a controversy, we just have a notion on what who agrees and who disagrees.

teeming with ridicule This must be the first blank. No matter what. it has sense: when we do have a certain field of the study apparently everybody agrees with BUT as soon as we go much deeper into that, bang: different lines of thought emerge. Therefore, it becomes somehow ridiculous when we dig into the argument at the very essence.

Wowww. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

PS: of course, it was really tough.

Regards