vikasp99 wrote:
Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consider that the press is a profit-making institution. Like other private enterprises, it has to make money to survive. If press were not profit-making, who would support it? The only alternative is subsidy and, with it, outside control. It is easy to get subsidies for propaganda, but no one will subsidize honest journalism.
It can be properly inferred from the passage that if the press is
(A) not subsidized, it is in no danger of outside control
(B) not subsidized, it will not produce propaganda
(C) not to be subsidized, it cannot be a profit-making institution
(D) to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution
(E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism
Argument
People criticize press for pandering to public sentiment. What they forget is that press must make money.
The only alternative to profits is subsidy.
One can get subsidy for propaganda. But one will not get subsidy if it engages in honest journalism. So if press engages in honest journalism, it will not get subsidy.
Subsidy is the ONLY alternative to profit making. If it doesn't get subsidy, it must make profit.
Then, if press engages in honest journalism, it must make profit.
This is what (D) says.
(A) not subsidized, it is in no danger of outside control
If subsidised, there is outside control. But there may be outside control even without subsidy. Hence, not correct.
(B) not subsidized, it will not produce propaganda
We know what it will likely do if it is subsidised (produce propaganda) but we do not know what it will do if it is not subsidised.
(C) not to be subsidized, it cannot be a profit-making institution
Not correct. If it is not subsidised, it must be profit making to survive.
(E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism
We know that it panders to public sentiment to make profit. Is it necessary for press to produce honest journalism to make profit, we don't know.
Answer (D)