You’re absolutely right that these questions can feel difficult until you build the habit of breaking down the sentence structure effectively. What helps make the “math strategy” or any logical approach more consistent is starting with a breakdown of the ideas in the sentence. That means identifying which parts influence each other, and how they’re connected.
In this sentence, we have a clear contrast structure introduced by “while”:
While X, Y — where X and Y present opposing ideas.
So first, look at what X is saying.
“Some see in practical jokes a wish for mastery…”
That’s the central idea here — some people perceive practical jokes as a way to control or master a chaotic world. The next part (“in miniature over a world that seems very ___”) gives extra context, but it’s not the main idea. It expands on the idea of mastery by contrasting it with the nature of the world.
The contrast comes in Y:
“Others believe that the jokes’ purpose is to____(disrupt)…”
This is where the real contrast lies — not between the tone of the world, but between the perceived purpose of the jokes.
So instead of being about control/mastery, this second view is about disruption, which is the opposite of mastery.
Therefore:
The first blank should reflect how the world seems (i.e. chaotic, unpredictable), something that justifies the need for “mastery.”
The second blank should reflect a quality that contrasts with control or mastery — something like chaos or disorder.
So the key takeaway is this:
Always start by identifying the idea chunks. Ask yourself:
What is the main idea in each clause?
How do these ideas relate — are they building, contrasting, or explaining?
By doing this consistently, even abstract or philosophical sentences become easier to work through logically.
