He … the practices of aggressive autographseekers, arguing that anyone ddistinguished enough to merit such … also deserved to be treated courteously.
The answer is (decried, adulation). Why? The sentence’s second part is not even contrasting the first.
Those are the words that fit? I don’t know how else to answer this. It is a vocabulary exercise. If you know what the words mean, then the sentence makes perfect sense.
That sentence makes perfect sense to me.
The second blank should be something that matches with distinguished and merit.
But why treat aggressive autograph seekers “courteously?”
He is arguing that it is the ones giving the autographs (receiving the adulation) who deserve courtesy from those who seek the autographs.
So you mean that instead of the respect given to those who have the autographs, that respect should instead go to the ones giving it?
He “decried” (criticized) aggressive autograph seekers because he thought anyone who deserved their “adulation” (admiration–in other words, anyone who’s autographs they were seeking to get) should be treated **courteously/b.
I wonder if your issue is with “autograph”. That is when famous people sign something (like someone asks JK Rowling to autograph – or sign-- a copy of a Harry Potter book).
So if you use that example, he is arguing that JK Rowling deserves courtesy from those seeking autographs.