We can infer that because Sally did not show up to school on Friday with her hair died pink, that it stopped the rumors that she had died her hair. So, we need to pick out an answer choice that means something like "stopped." Neither "encouraged" nor "confirmed" can be the correct answer, because Sally did nothing to support the rumors that she had died her hair pink, so neither answer choice makes sense in the sentence's context. "Quash," however, means "put an end to; suppress," so "quashed" is the answer choice that best describes what happened to the rumors, and because "quashed" best fits the context of the sentence, it is the correct answer.

The sentence implies a contrast because of its beginning with "although." The blank is contrasted to the fact that Jefferson could write very communicatively. The implication is that he was perhaps not as impressive in communicating by other means. The only option that indicates such other means of communication is the word "orator." An orator is one who speaks in a public forum. The fact that Jefferson writes well when alone particularly hints that the contrasting term should be "orator," which not only indicates abilities as a speaker but also the fact that such speaking is public in character.

The key to this question is the word "although." This sets up a contrast between the main clause and the introductory clause. The contrast being expressed is between the fact that Patrick had worked for years as a technician and his status as a programmer. In contrast to working for a number of years, he must have worked few years (or none) as a programmer. Therefore, he lacks "experience." The second best answer is "expertise." However, it could be the case that Patrick has the expertise (though unpracticed).

A resume should express someone's work experience (and other such background information), making the case for them to be considered for some form of employment. If Dean had no work experience at all, his resume was "not much to see." That is, it was not "impressive" for his potential employers.

The contrast being expressed in this sentence is between specific details that are difficult to understand and ones that are not specific but are easily understood. To be "not specific" is to be "general." The word "general" comes from the Latin and Greek meaning class or kind. The genus "homo" in "homo sapiens" is the general class of animals like us. We are "specifically" "sapiens."

The sentences are clearly contrasting an instantaneous process to one that happens "over time." This is far from being "immediate." Instead, such a process is "gradual," meaning happening slowly and by small stages or degrees. The word "gradual" comes from the Latin for step and is found in words like "grade" and "gradation."

The key phrase in this question is "even if they are not punished by the law." This indicates that the actions mentioned earlier in the sentence are apparently not punishable under the law. When the law does not punish something, that thing is generally considered "legal." The word "legal" itself comes from the Latin word "lex" or "legis," meaning law. This is by far the closest word to our immediate need.

These two clauses contrast the sense of being an "option" or being "optional" to the word that is being required for the answer. In contrast to being "optional," something might be "necessary or a requirement. Therefore, "requirement" is the best answer of those given.

The parallel in this sentence is between being "horrible" and whatever it is that bribes do not necessarily do to politicians. To become horrible or morally bad is to become "corrupted." This is much better than "wealthy," as the sentence is not focusing directly on the wealth gained by some politicians; it is focused on the overall negative impact of political life on their character. This is best noted by "corrupted." Note also that the sentence does not necessarily say that they become tyrants—though political corruption might in fact lead to that.

The sentence is contrasting two temperaments, one that is timid and quiet and another that is the opposite. Clearly, Peter is assertive—to the point of questioning his elders. This does not, however, mean that he is "bratty." It may or may not mean that. Likewise, he might be "annoying" (pesky), but we do not know that necessarily. The best option is "forceful," which contrasts directly with the timidity of John.