90 seconds on average for 3 blanks.

Good job

I considered it as one of the tough questions However the first line was a give it all as it made it clear where and in which direction the sentence is moving and in addition. How can we connect iwth the flow

Took me 66 seconds, all correct.

21 seconds all correct

Looks promising. Could we have a cogent explanation ??

I took 60 seconds for this question - all correct. Here is how I did it:

I think the first sentence really sets the tone here. "There is no point in combing through the director’s work for hints of ideological significance". This tells us that most of his ideas are presented clearly in his works. There is no need for scrupulous analysis. For blank 1, the only option which fits this criteria is the option "chief impetus". I then went to blank 3 since I thought it was easier to do. After blank 1, it is pretty easy to infer that critics would scold him for how clearly his ideas are presented (note that this can be a negative thing since some people appreciate hidden meanings/metaphors). Hence, we put down subtlety for blank 3. Now, going to blank 2 - this must be bluntness since, again, all his ideas are presented clearly.

The sentence says that there is no point in trying to look for hints of ideological significance in the director's movies. This signals that they are often key focuses of his movies and are quite blatant. So we can now look for our words, the first blank is obviously 'chief impetus' since it means 'primary focus/force behind something'. Next we are told that critics are bothered by this, so it can only mean that the 'bluntness' throws them off so we choose that. Finally, critics seem to scold the director for a lack of ______. This can only be subtlety as that is what the director lacks while pushing his viewpoints. So we choose, B,D,H.

There is no point in combing through the director’s work for hints of ideological significance. It (it* refers to combing through director's work) is unnecessary: (: represents the continuation of an idea or elaboration) his ideology—Marxist, anti-imperialist, aligned with the perceived interests of the powerless and the marginal—is the (i) ________ of his films. FIB: Central Theme of his films - OPTION B


The clarity and force of that ideology are considerable, but its (ii) ________ sometimes bothers critics, who often scold the director for lacking (iii) ________. This is a double possibility (do not have enough evidence to fill the blank); only thing we can say is that the words have opposite meaning. Only D and H form synonym - antonym pair.

There is no point in combing through the director’s work for hints of ideological significance. It is unnecessary: his ideology—Marxist, anti-imperialist, aligned with the perceived interests of the powerless and the marginal—is the (i) ________ of his films. The clarity and force of that ideology are considerable, but its (ii) ________ sometimes bothers critics, who often scold the director for lacking (iii) ________.

First Blank

Since it is not necessary to comb through the director's work to find his ideology, and since we are also told that the clarity and the force of his ideology are considerable, we can say that his ideology is the chief impetus of his films. The clarity and force of his ideology also insists that it is not the hidden focus of his films. There is nothing to justify it as a murky lesson of his films.


Second Blank

The "but" in the second sentence after the comma implies that we need something that counters the clarity and force of his ideology. It cannot be feebleness, because it is the exact opposite of force, and it makes no sense to say the ideology has both force and feebleness. We are not looking for exact opposite, but something similar to counterparts. Since it is unnecessary to search for the ideology, obscurity can be rejected. Bluntness is a good choice for the same reason. And also because the ideology has clarity and force. And we already know that it is the chief impetus of his films.

Third Blank

And if the director was blunt, then the critics will scold him for lacking subtlety.

Hence the correct choices are chief impetus, bluntness and subtlety.

HarishKumar
Why its not Obscurity and Lucidity ??
opposite of clarity is obscurity
and opposite of obscurity is lucidity.

The worst-case scenario is to be rigid and inflexible approaching a TC complex like this.

Your focus should be on the question rather on the words. They are a natural consequence of your sentence understanding

Now, notice that this sentence is complex: it uses eh-dash, colon and a linking words BUT as contrast. So we should have the (i) in contrast with the other two blanks

There is no point in combing through the director’s work for hints of ideological significance.


MMMhhh this phrase (it is not a sentence) is here to introduce something about the director's work. Basically it syass that the job is meaningless


It is unnecessary: his ideology—Marxist, anti-imperialist, aligned with the perceived interests of the powerless and the marginal—is the (i) ________ of his films.

We do not need and then a colo, which means that the sentence after the colon is an explanation WHY the all things are unnecessary. The ideology - my thinking or what I firmly believe, related to the Marxism philosophy, is the main focus of the movie. But for now I leave it to see what is going on in the rest of the sentence.

One thing is sure: the first blank is in contrast with the other two blanks. I.e. IF the first one is white the other blanks must be black or the other way around


The clarity and force of that ideology are considerable, but its (ii) ________ sometimes bothers critics, who often scold the director for lacking (iii) ________.


The ideology is powerful BUT the way it is exposed in the movie or maybe how it is intended DO NOT like the critics

The same critics OFTEN reproach the director to have or to lack of something.

Now , doing reverse engineering of the sentence

1) the director lacks of something good and because we are talking about IDEOLOGY or ideas and BECAUSE the critics do not like the ideas are they are exposed or filmed in the movie the (iii) must be courage. We said that the ideology is powerful soooo the director lacks of courage or a strong way to expose his idea or ideology

2) going backward: the director lacks courage. That means THIS bothers the critics. And IF this is not good to the critics the arguments exposed in the movie are WEAK. BECAUSE the ideology per see is strong and powerful. The only words
is bluntness. During the sentence, we are talking about ideology, powerfulness, ideas and that those are weak or strong NOT unclear. So D and F are out

3) Now we are in the last blank to fill in which turns out is the first one. The (i) blank must be on the other side of the spectrum of the (ii) and (iii) blanks

we said that the movie shows what Marxism is indeed: it stand on the side or powerless people. the poor....and blah blah blah. The movie shows this. Notice also that A and C are basically to options similar: hidden and murky means basically NO clearness. Obscure. So they cannot be the answers for two reasons

- if they were then we would have TWO good words for the first blank. This is clearly NOT possible. The answer must be B
- moreover, we need a word that shows the director's ideas are good. Murky and hidden are NOT good. For example: murky waters are NOT clear waters and they are cloudy, dirty. This is completely out of scope for the first blank.

B must be the first blank

Sorry for the long explanation.

I hope this helps

thanks a lot Carcass