Analysis of the Sentence
1. The Contrast: The sentence sets up a contrast between theory and reality.
2. The Theory: Political theories ________ (i) propound (put forward an idea or theory) that daily politics should be "clear, thorough, and consistent."
3. The Reality: The reality is that daily politics does not have to conform to the theory's ideal, meaning reality is often messy, unclear, and inconsistent.
4. Required Meaning: The blank must describe the type of theories that demand or describe the world in an overly organized, systematic, or structured way-the opposite of the messy reality of "daily politics."

Evaluating the Options
We are looking for synonyms that mean "organized," "structured," or "systematic."
- A. neat: Tidy, orderly, or carefully arranged. (Strong fit for theories that demand clarity and consistency.)
- F. tidy: Arranged neatly and in order. (Synonym of "neat" and also a strong fit.)
- B. vague: Unclear or undefined. (Opposite of the required meaning, as the theories propound clarity.)
- C. assertive: Having or showing a confident and forceful personality. (Describes style, not the structured content of the theory.)
- D. casual: Relaxed and unconcerned; not serious or formal. (Opposite of the type of theories that demand strict consistency.)
- E. vicious: Deliberately cruel or violent. (Irrelevant.)

The two words that best describe theories that are overly clean, structured, and fail to account for the messiness of reality are neat and tidy.

The correct answers are A. neat and F. tidy.

### 1. Purpose of the question

This Sentence Equivalence question tests (i) **vocabulary precision for adjectives** and (ii) your ability to read the **logical contrast** between political theory and political reality using connectors (“regardless of,” “that is”) and punctuation (dash).

---

### 2. Step-by-step solution

**a. Read the sentence without the options.**

Paraphrased:

> No matter what ______ political theories may say, nothing forces everyday politics to be clear, thorough, and consistent—nothing, in other words, forces reality to match theory.

The key idea: **theories vs. messy reality**. Theories can have one set of properties; actual politics does not necessarily share them.

**b. Identify the connectors and structure.**

* **“Regardless of what ...”** is a **concessive subordinator**: it introduces a clause we’re going to partly dismiss.

* “Regardless of X, Y” = “Even though X, still Y.”
* The **main clause** is: “there is nothing that requires daily politics to be clear, thorough, and consistent.”
* The dash introduces a **restatement**: “— nothing, that is, that requires reality to conform to theory.” This reinforces that the real world need not match the theoretical picture.

So, logically:

> Theories of politics may be ______ and demand clarity, thoroughness, consistency,
> **but** real politics is under no obligation to be like that.

The blank must describe the *nature* of theories, in a way that fits with “clear, thorough, and consistent.”

**c. Predict a simple word.**

If theory demands that things be clear, thorough, and consistent, then theory itself is likely:

> “orderly / well-organized / clean and structured.”

So a good prediction: **“orderly” or “well-organized.”**

We also see the blank modifies “theories,” so it must be an **adjective.**

**d. Go through the options one by one.**

A. **neat** – literally “clean and orderly”; figuratively, “well-organized, clearly arranged.”

* This matches our prediction: theories can present politics as neat and orderly.
* Keep.

B. **vague** – unclear, imprecise.

* This clashes with “clear, thorough, and consistent.” If theories themselves were vague, it would be odd to say politics is *not required* to be clear; vague ≠ neat, orderly.
* Reject.

C. **assertive** – forceful, confident, bold in stating opinions.

* A theory can be assertive, but this has nothing to do with “clear, thorough, and consistent.” It doesn’t capture the idea of **order and structure.**
* Reject.

D. **casual** – relaxed, informal, not serious or thorough.

* Again, this fights the “clear, thorough, and consistent” triad. Casual is nearly the opposite of thorough.
* Reject.

E. **vicious** – cruel, brutal, violent.

* Totally unrelated to clarity, thoroughness, consistency. It describes temperament, not structure or organization.
* Reject.

F. **tidy** – literally “neatly arranged, orderly”; figuratively, “well-organized and systematic.”

* This is very close in meaning to **neat** and fits perfectly with the idea of theory as something **clear and orderly.**
* Keep.

The only pair that both fits the sentence and shares a close meaning is:

> **neat (A)** and **tidy (F).**

---

### 3. General Strategy Takeaway

* **Locate the main clause vs. the background clause.** Here, “Regardless of what ...” is background; the main claim is that politics need not be clear and consistent.
* Treat **concessive markers** (“regardless of,” “although,” “even though”) as signals that what follows them might be *contrasted* with the main clause. Ask: “What is being conceded, and what is the real point?”
* **Predict first in plain language** (“theories present politics as orderly”), then use that prediction to filter the answer choices.
* In Sentence Equivalence, the correct answers must both (i) match your predicted meaning in the sentence and (ii) be **near-synonyms** of each other. If your two picks don’t feel like synonyms, you probably need to rethink.

Note: I used chatGPT for this explanation; nevertheless, it is free from error.