Bunuel wrote:
The free press is one of the fundamental parts of a democratic society, since it acts both to disseminate information and to express dissent. If a democracy is to remain viable, its press must remain free.
Which one of the following conclusions can most logically be drawn from the passage above?
(A) If a society has a free press, it is a democracy.
(B) Only a free press acts to disseminate information and to express dissent.
(C) A democratic society can place no restrictions on the expression of dissent.
(D) If a society does not have a free press, it does not have a viable democracy.
(E) A democracy that is not viable does not have a free press.
Official Explanation
This problem is hard because the second-best answer-choice is nearly as good as the answer.
Choice (A) overstates the argument. The author implies merely that a free press is necessary for democracy, not sufficient.
Choice (B) uses the same language used in the argument to overstate the second clause.
Choice (C) is second-best; it slightly overstates the argument. It is conceivable that the author considers a press with certain restrictions to still be free; for example, restrictions against slander and libel.
Choice (D) is the answer since it necessarily follows from the argument. You may have noticed that it is the contrapositive of the conclusion found at the end of the argument. (We will discuss the use of formal logic to solve arguments later.)
Finally, choice (E) makes a false claim. A society may have a free press yet fail to be a democracy. For example, historically the U.S. has had a free press. Yet many people would claim that it did not become a true democracy until the right to vote was granted to women and blacks. Notice that choice (E) is merely a rewording of choice (A).