Since the vacation package did not cover all aspects of the trip, it cannot be called “comprehensive,” meaning it cannot be said to be “all-inclusive.” When someone comprehends something, he or she is said to understand all of that thing’s aspects or parts. More generally, something is comprehensive when it covers all of the aspects of some reality—here, the reality of a trip. Since the package did not cover many aspects of the trip, it is rightly said to be “far from being comprehensive.” The word is related to “apprehend,” literally meaning “to grab toward something.” Something that “comprehends” could be said to grab together all of the parts.

The opposition implied by this sentence is between the word “thorough” and the blank to be filled. When a job is done thoroughly, it is done completely, with all parts being considered and accomplished. To do “minimal” work would be to do the least possible amount of work necessary—quite the opposite of “thorough”! The word is related to “minus” and is likewise found in words like “diminution” (a reduction) or “diminish” (to reduce).

For this question, it is a matter of not being overwhelmed by potential options. Something can be thin but still very durable and hard to break, and a flexible or pliant material is actually quite unlikely to break (since it can “flex” to meet the onslaught of the apparently destructive pebbles). The best option is the simplest, namely “fragile.” The word means “easily broken,” which really is all that is needed for this sentence.

When the facts of a criminal case are not conclusive but carry force, they are often called “circumstantial.” More strictly, this word means that the evidence has to deal with data pertaining to the circumstances in question. While the word can mean that the data is comprehensive (if it really does describe those circumstances in a thorough way), when applied to a court case, this kind of evidence does not provide deductive certainty. For instance, you might know that the defendant was in France and that the murder happened in France. If that is all that you have for an argument that the defendant committed the murder (in France), your case is rather weak indeed.

The key thing to note here is that Zachary treats his friends in a way that judges them to be less intellectually able than him and that implies this judgment in his very way of speaking. It could be said that he acts in a manner so as to “step down to their level.” When someone is “condescending,” he or she do just that, always with the implication that it is accompanied by the feeling of superiority in comparison with the others.

A “faux pas” is a social “false step,” an embarrassing action. The sense of the sentence is that Patrick’s mother was utterly embarrassed by his actions. The other options imply more than is justified by the expression “faux pas.” When someone is “mortified,” he or she is embarrassed, often in a strong sense. The word literally means “to make dead,” hear as though the actions would “embarrass to death.” The “mort-” portion of the word is related to the Latin for “death” and is found in English words like “mortal,” “immortal,” and “morgue.”

This sentence implies an intensification from the first independent clause to the second by using the words “not merely.” The word being intensified is “happy.” To say that Selena is “very happy,” the best option is “elated.” This word is derived from the Latin for meaning “carried out of.” When someone is elated, he or she is so emotional that he or she is “carried out of himself or herself.” Another way that it is expressed is to say that such a person is “ecstatically happy,” which also means “happy in the sense of ‘standing outside of oneself.’” Sometimes, you might here older people say, “He was beside himself with joy.” This expresses the same sense.

The key expression in this sentence is “not take it seriously at all.” Since the affair is said not to be taken seriously “at all,” it must be a rather laughable affair or at least one that is very inconsequential (to Daria, at least). When something is “ludicrous,” it is a “laughable” matter. While we cannot say for certain that the affair was ridiculous or laughable, still this kind of “lack of gravity” is implied by the aforementioned “not . . . at all.” This is far better than “depressing” or the other (even worse) options. The word “ludicrous,” actually comes from the Latin for “game,” so a ludicrous affair could be said to be “just a game” (at least in the eye of the beholder).

All of the wrong options are those that most directly pertain to education, academia, or the intellect. The key thing to note is that the remarks make the topic understandable. When one thing helps to make another understandable, that first thing is said to “illuminate” the other. The sense of the word is taken from the metaphorical image of shining a light on a dark (obscure) subject matter.

The key word in this sentence is “mistakes.” The only contrast being implied is that George did not seem to think that he could make mistakes (though his friends knew better). When someone is “infallible” that person does not make mistakes. The word “fallible” means “capable of making mistakes” and is related to “false” as well as “fallacy” and “fallacious.” The “in-” functions here as a negative, making “in-fallible” to mean “not-fallible.”