Nice question. Almost got it wrong by thinking it was B instead of D.

D is the answer. It relates the last sentence to the previous statement and provides the connection for the complete argument.

Nice question..Answers are close..But D is my final selection as well..it bridges the gap between electronic media and participation outside families...A i felt is close but far too strong to be an assumption in this case.

IMO A
A democratic society cannot exist unless its citizens have established strong bonds of mutual trust.

A- supports the assumption
.......................... is unable to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen.

A or D.. I am confused. I went with A.

IMO A,

Confused between A & D.

Very nice question. Options A and D are very confusing. A is a little too extreme to be true as an assumption in this case. So D is the correct assumption.

nice one
but one careful glance and i guess D will stand out

Conclusion : "Widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on democracy".{In other words electronic media is bad}

(A) "Anyone who relies on movies and electronic media for entertainment is unable to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen."

This choice negated becomes, "Anyone who relies on movies and electronic media for entertainment is able to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen."

Does this weaken the argument? No. Because even if they are able to form strong bonds of mutual trust with citizens they may not do so because they are spending all their time at the movies and not at civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family. Therefore, the conclusion holds that electronic media is bad for democracy moreover, this option focuses more on forming bonds with citizens and that is why it's incorrect.

(D) "Relying on movies and electronic media for entertainment generally makes people less likely to participate in groups outside their families."

This choice negated becomes, "Relying on movies and electronic media for entertainment generally makes people not less likely to participate in groups outside their families."

Does this weaken the argument? Yes. Because if they are just as likely to participate in group events outside their families then the movies have no affect on whether a person goes to these events and forms bonds with other citizens. Therefore the conclusion that electronic media is bad for democracy falls apart.
Hence, D is correct answer choice here.
_________________

I understand option D. But how do you eliminate answer choice A. Negating A : Anyone who relies on movie and electronic media is able to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen. Doesn't this weaken the argument??

A is too strong, i thought the same . But went with D in the end

The question asks us which answer choice is "an assumption on which the columnist’s argument depends," which is different than an answer choice that, if negated, would weaken the argument. An assumption on which the argument depends MUST be true in order for the conclusion to follow logically from the evidence in the passage.

The columnist concludes that "widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on democracy."

His/her evidence for this conclusion is as follows:

• A democratic society cannot exist unless its citizens have established strong bonds of mutual trust
• Such bonds are formed and strengthened only by participation in civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family.

Take another look at (A):

The key to eliminating this answer choice is the word "anyone."

The conclusion states that "widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on democracy." This just means that the overall effect of widespread reliance on movies/electronic media is corrosive to democracy. The conclusion would still be valid if, say, a large majority of people who use movies/electronic media are unable to form bonds of trust, even if a small number of movie watchers/electronic media users are able to form such bonds.

The argument does not require "anyone" who relies on movies/electronic media to be unable to form a strong bond of mutual support. Because this statement does not absolutely have to be true in order for the conclusion to be logically sound, answer choice (A) is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

I hope that helps!
_________________

If you read this again closely, this answer choice asserts that "Unable to form a strong bond" is certain. The conclusion, however, states "inherently corrosive effect". The language of the two are subtle but (A) is to the extreme while the conclusion is to a possibility.
_________________

GMATNinja

What does option E mean?
People who rely on movies and electronic media for entertainment are generally closer to their families than are those who do not.

People who are not relying on movies and electronic media are closer to families of not?
We only know that people do not watch movies, but can we properly infer that they are also not closer to their families?

To make sense of (E), we should really look at it as part of the overall question. So, let's take a look at the passage first.

We're told that:

• A democratic society needs its citizens to have established strong bonds of mutual trust for it to survive
• These bonds are formed by participating in groups outside the family

These two points are used as evidence to support the passage's conclusion: the reliance on electronic media for entertainment has an "inherently corrosive effect on democracy."

This question asks us which of the answer choices is an assumption on which the columnist’s argument depends. If the argument depends on an assumption, then the assumption is necessary to reach the conclusion from the evidence provided. If the answer choice is correct, then it would not be possible for the conclusion to logically follow from the evidence without it.

(E) tells us:

In (E), we're comparing two groups of people: the first group rely on movies and electronic media for their entertainment, the second group entertains themselves in a different way -- we aren't told what that different way is.

Also, there is some amount of closeness that everyone feels towards their own family. People in the first group will have a higher level of closeness to their own family than the level of closeness felt towards their own family by people in the second group.

We're looking for an assumption required to conclude that electronic media has an "inherently corrosive effect on democracy," because it prevents bonds being formed by people participating in groups outside their family. Knowing about the strength of the bond between family members is not an assumption that's required for this argument. This is why (E) is not the correct answer to this question.

Compare this to (D):

The columnist says people participating in groups outside their families is necessary for democracy to survive. This participation develops the "strong bonds of mutual trust" required to maintain a democracy.

If relying on movies and electronic media had no effect on whether people participate in groups outside their families then the reliance on this media for entertainment would not have a corrosive effect on democracy. If (D) is true then people who rely on movies and electronic media for entertainment will be less likely to participate in groups outside their families. This means they will be less likely to develop the "strong bonds of mutual trust" required to maintain a democracy, and the passage's conclusion follows from the evidence.

(D) is necessary for this argument to be effective, so (D) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!
_________________