Detailed Analysis
1. Analyze Blank (i): The Main Claim
- Context: Science is always "imperiled," whether by religious or political repression. However, the claim that science "will only flourish in times of libertarian rule" is being questioned.
- Logic: The author is setting up a counter-argument to this claim. If the claim is being rejected because the situation is more complex, the claim itself is not a necessary, unavoidable, or definitive truth.
- B. ineluctable: Means unavoidable or inevitable. If the conclusion is not ineluctable, it means it can be avoided or is not guaranteed to be true. This fits the author's rejection of the absolute claim.
- A. superficial (lacking depth) is too weak; the claim might be deeply flawed, but the primary critique is that it's not a necessary truth.
- C. tentative (uncertain) describes the conclusion's status, but "not a tentative conclusion" is awkward. "Not an inevitable conclusion" is the strongest contrast to the absolute "will only flourish."

2. Analyze Blank (ii): Defining a Government Type
- Context: The author explains why the claim in Blank (i) is flawed: "A(n) ______ (ii) government is not the same as one that actively takes an interest in funding science." The first part of the contrast ("A(n) _______ government") must refer to the type of rule mentioned in the initial claim that science supposedly needs: libertarian rule (which implies freedom and lack of interference).
- F. permissive: Means allowing great freedom of action; lenient. This is the closest synonym for the libertarian, non-repressive rule the argument is debunking.
- D. despotic (tyrannical) and E. aloof (distant) describe governments that are too extreme or lack the necessary nuance for this specific contrast.
3. Analyze Blank (iii): The Nature of the Funding Government
- Context: The comparison is between a permissive (non-repressive) government and one that actively takes an interest in funding science. The second type of government, the author says, "may well be, in some respects, ________ (iii)."
- Logic: A government that actively funds science is often not "permissive"; it must be highly interventionist, centrally planning, or controlling-the opposite of libertarian.
- I. autocratic: Means relating to a ruler who has absolute power; dictatorial. This perfectly describes a government that is highly interventionist and controlling in its actions, even if those actions are beneficial (funding science). Such a government contrasts sharply with a "permissive" one.
- G. corrupt (dishonest) introduces a moral judgment that is not supported by the context of funding/non-funding.
- H. inviolate (safe from harm) is irrelevant.

The completed sentence reads:
Whether repression has come from the church or from a totalitarian state, science has always been an imperiled endeavor, but to claim that it will only flourish in times of libertarian rule is not an ineluctable conclusion. A permissive government is not the same as one that actively takes an interest in funding science - and the latter may well be, in some respects, autocratic.