It is clear that Romano doesn't like practitioners of analytic epistemology and he misses no opportunity to (i) ____ them
So, blank i should be something negative.
Option B. wreck havoc on is a bit far-fetched and very very negative and option C is positive.
So, option A looks suitable for blank 1.

Romano, while making his statements, himself seem at least as (ii)___ as the allegedly narrow-minded academics he is attacking.
It means blank ii should contain something similar to narrow-minded.
Option E. intolerant means narrow-minded (I wasn't aware of this and got this wrong because of this).

for the first blank :
Since the option C is positive, we reject that.
Looking over at options A and B, we look for a clue, read further.
we find the word "rhetoric", therefore, we select option A as scorn means mocking/disrespect.
coming to the second blank, we need something close to narrowminded - so intolerable. Then, for the third blank: I was confused between irony and caricature : I reread the sentence and since, there was no irony as such, and caricature means mocking, and the sentence reflects mocking: the answer is caricature.
hope it helps.

what about the the subtle irony in the last line, The reasoning of mainstream analytic epistemologists takes a wide variety of forms, and categorizing them as makers of "narrow syllogistic arguments" (iii) ___ at best. isn't there a contrast between the two words?

Just read the last sentence and iii) is clear. "[The reasoning...] and [categorizing them ... is iii)___ at best]." is a comparison: Epistemologist's reasoning is wide, while Romano categorize them as "narrow...". Romano's statements is certainly deviated from truth, and could be a caricature.

Why not irony, it also means mocking ?

Can somebody explain the third blank ?

The reasoning of mainstream analytic epistemologists takes a wide variety of forms, and categorizing them as makers of "narrow syllogistic arguments" (iii) ___ at best.

it is "caricature" which means : restricting them in a narrow stretch is ridiculous

H and I are out of scope

Please, ask if something is still unclear to you

"Romano misses no opportunity to (i) $\qquad$ the practitioners of analytic epistemology. Unfortunately, the overheated rhetoric he habitually employs makes him seem at least as (ii) $\qquad$ as the allegedly narrow-minded academics he is attacking. He charges that they, oblivious in their inbred conventions to time and intellectual culture passing them by, continue to focus on narrow syllogistic arguments in the theory of knowledge. The reasoning of mainstream analytic epistemologists takes a wide variety of forms, and categorizing them as makers of 'narrow syllogistic arguments' (iii) $\qquad$ at best."

Blank (i):
- "heap scorn on" - fits well, indicating Romano harshly criticizes
- "wreck havoc on" - means causing physical damage, less fitting in critique context
- "atone for" - means to make amends, opposite of criticism

Best: heap scorn on

Blank (ii):
- "innocent" - unlikely because he seems as bad as those he attacks
- "intolerant" - fits perfectly, meaning he is as narrow-minded or harsh as those he criticizes
- "scathing" - describes rhetoric, not person's attitude directly here

Best: intolerant

Blank (iii):
- "a caricature" - fits well implying their portrayal is an exaggerated distortion
- "an irony" - does not fit structurally here
- "a ventilation" - unrelated meaning

Best: a caricature

Final chosen:
(i) heap scorn on
(ii) intolerant
(iii) a caricature

So the sentence reads best as:
"Romano misses no opportunity to heap scorn on the practitioners of analytic epistemology.
Unfortunately, the overheated rhetoric he habitually employs makes him seem at least as intolerant as the allegedly narrow-minded academics he is attacking. The reasoning of mainstream analytic epistemologists takes a wide variety of forms, and categorizing them as makers of "narrow syllogistic arguments" is a caricature at best."

Can someone please explain why it is not irony for the third blank ? Since he employs overheated rhetoric, he himself comes across as narrow-minded. I took this clue and thought that categorizing them as makers of "narrow syllogistic arguments" is ironic.