Since the group of men were motivated to their action by what they took to be the inadequacies of the local police coverage, it could be said that they have “taken the law into their hands.” When a group of citizens deputes itself to act in the capacity of the legal authorities (but without any official granting of that capacity), that group is called a “vigilante” group, and its members "vigilantes." The word is related to the word “vigilant,” which means watching attentively for dangers, but it adds the negative sense of exercising such attention without legal mandate.

The sentence does not say anything about changes in Theodore’s diet. We do not know if his protein intake was reduced or if it always was this low. The only thing that is known is that he was always sick because of insufficient nourishment; therefore, the best word is “paucity,” which means scarce amounts. It is derived from the Latin for few, which can be found in the related Spanish expression “un poco,” meaning a little.

Because we know that the CEO hired his brother for an important position without making him first interview at the company, we can infer that we need to pick out a noun that means the giving of preferential treatment. While "favoritism" may sound like it could be the correct answer because the CEO is certainly showing favoritism by hiring his brother, "nepotism" is an even better answer for the sentence's context, as it means using one's position of power to give a friend or relative a job. So, while both "favoritism" and "nepotism" make sense in the blank, "nepotism" is the correct answer because it is more precisely suited to the sentence's context.

We know that the subject's family "never criticiz[es] her for her shortcomings," so we need to pick out a noun that means something like "shortcomings." Since "foible" means a minor shortcoming, "foibles" is the answer choice best suited to the sentence's context and the correct answer.

Since the politician spoke truthfully, it can be said that he spoke with “candor,” meaning frankness. Often, we use the words “candid” and “candidly.” They are derived from the Latin word for white, which developed over time into these English words insofar as they mean clean or pure in the sense of not being “clouded” by half-truths or outright lies.

The key thing to note here is that Brandon still has two choices that cannot be eliminated. When someone reaches such a state of decision, it is called a “dilemma,” which literally means two premises (as in an argument). The “lemma” portion is used in mathematics to indicate theorem that is used in the middle of a proof (hence functioning like a premise of sorts), while the “di-” (two / double) prefix should be familiar as found in “dichromatic” (made up of two colors) or “diploid” (a cell having two sets of chromosomes).

While it might be said that Donald experienced any one of the emotions given as options for this question, the key point to note is that he approached those whom he had harmed for the sake of asking their forgiveness. When one is “contrite,” he or she is aware of the guilt of past actions. This would likely lead to the desire to beg forgiveness from any offended parties.

"Gusto" means great enthusiasm or relish. "Patent" means a copyright on an invention. "Parity" means equality or balance. "Quirk" means an oddity of personality or strange way of doing something. "Truculence" means a fight or aggression.

This opposition is not a strong "A / not-A" sort of opposition (like kind / unkind). Instead, it is an opposition that is only separated by a “fine line.” It is best to consider two things that might seem to be alike even if they are distinct (and ultimately opposed). When someone is “penurious,” he or she is either very poor or perhaps just very cheap. The former really does not fit well with any of the potential answers, but the latter, stronger option does pair well with “frugality.” When someone is “frugal,” he or she lives simply, though this need not be completely penurious in a negative sense. There is a fine line between the two—and this is what the question demands!

Since René valued people in this manner, he would judge his uneducated neighbors to be of low value. He would hold them in “low esteem,” literally, “low estimate.” When someone scorns something, he or she values believes it to be of little or now value, particularly with contempt. This is clearly the case with his undervaluing of them, as is indicated by the relative clause “whom he ignored as worthless nobodies.”