Hello,
I had a doubt in question mentioned in session 7 of TC and SE 2024 series. According to the me, block of 4 look like as follows :
recently…ridiculed
traditionally… praised.
And for the first blank we can use previously referenced by re-using the word amiable (guess would be friendly).
This logic is making more sense to me because the time contrast is on how the play was perceived and not the change of the play. Play would remain same and we have a word saying “his” hinting at previously referenced.
How I look at this question is
(i) it is one of those 2 subordinate clause’s contrast. So, if the first one says something positive, the dependent clause would be negative and vice versa.
(ii) 2nd clause is definitely a positive word (it’s confirmed from the options- since ‘lauded’ is the only viable option)
(iii) So the first clause must have a word that means something negative. Fervid is out because it’s positive; chauvinistic is out because it’s not relevant; and we have to settle with a best of out 3 options there which is inimical (opposite to amiable)
I am not sure if the first blank would be negative. There is already a negative connotation with the word ridiculed. Contrast is already established with ridiculed and praised. Why would the first blank be negative?
ridiculed is the ‘effect’, and unfriendly/inimical is the ‘cause’. Cause and effect always go to the same direction (either negative or positive).
(like greg would put it) I love pizza for its rich taste. Here, love is the ‘effect’ or outcome and rich is the ‘cause’.
At least, that’s how I understand the question.
