Video Explanation

Text Explanation

Answers: (C), (E), (I)

The best way to approach this sentence is by seeing the clue at the very end “environmental groups…effected.” Therefore, we know that environmental groups are doing good and that Lackmuller is ignoring them (the “however” tips us off that the third blank represents a shift from the rest of the sentence). Lackmuller, then, believes that groups not tied to the environment have become more (C) influential than groups that are actually protecting the environment from the government (these groups, he believes, have been suppressed. (E) squelched, which means to silence, works best.

That brings us back to the third blank: Muller is wrong in believing the first part of the sentence because he ignores all the great things environmental groups have done. Therefore, (I) is the best.

FAQ: Can you explain how 'nominally' is used in the prompt?

Nominally means "in name only; not in reality." But here, when the sentence says "not nominally tied..." it means that groups who are not tied to ecological concerns by name (that is, their group doesn't specifically promote dealing with these concerns) have become really influential in environmental policy making.

FAQ: How do we arrive at the right answer choice for the second blank?

Let's simplify the first sentence:

According to Lackmuller’s latest screed, special interest groups not tied to ecological concerns have become so (i) ___________ policymaking that those groups that are tied to ecological concerns have been effectively (ii) __________.

So we can see a contrast between two groups--those tied to ecological concerns and those not tied to ecological concerns. Basically the influence of those that aren't ecologically related in policymaking has had some kind of impact on those that are ecologically related. So we'd expect opposites for the two blanks. Influential in and squelched would make the most logical sense here, though we'll need some clues from the second sentence to confirm this. Vindicated doesn't seem to fit well as a contrast to influential in. These aren't good opposites. But let's dig deeper to find out: 

Lackmuller’s contention, however, is (iii) __________ in that it fails to account for the signal achievements environmental groups have effected over the last 20 years—often to the chagrin of big business.

Let's rephrase this:

However, his argument fails to account for the achievements environmental groups have effected over the last 20 years—often to the chagrin of big business, therefore his argument is ________.

So there's something wrong with Lackmuller's argument because it does not account for the success of the environmental groups against those other groups seeking corporate profit (non-ecological groups). Therefore, the logic is that Lackmuller considers the non-ecological groups to be powerful while the ecological groups have been ignored Squelched has a very similar meaning, so it's a good fit here, and it is much better than vindicated, which means to clear from blame. The author argues that this is not exactly true, and, in fact, Lackmuller's argument is highly misleading.