Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consi

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
The two conditions are for the profit making and these two are not the only method to make the press profitable but very likely to happen.The statement is bold and strong to say that based on the argument.

(B) not subsidized, it will not produce propaganda
If press is not subsidized then it will not make a propoganda is not neccessary since the press can make propoganda even if it is not subsidized and the propaganda may be influenced by some other reason.

(C) not to be subsidized, it cannot be a profit-making institution
the press can be a profitable institution by many means not just by subsidy.

(D) to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution
Correct inference, if the press is profitable then it would not req o be subsidized or to be in outside control.

(E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism
Not mandatory and cannot be infered.

Question stem:
subsidy -> propaganda
subsidy -> outside control
subsidy -> not honest journalism
not profit-making -> subsidy (who will support? No one. So subsidy is required in such case)

Hence, not profit-making -> not honest journalism which implies D.

For the Press to survive, there are only two alternatives
1) Profit making
2) Subsidy

To make honest journalism, the press should survive, but since the subsidy is not available for honest journalis, the only option available is profit making.

Therefore, to make honest journalism , the press should be profit making

Answer D.

Premise: if not a profit making institution (A) -> no honest journalism (B)
Contra positive: not B -> not A
Answer D: honest journalism (not B) -> profit making institution (not A).

Key takeaways from the argument:
1) Press is a profile-making institution.
2) If not a profit-making institution, it should be subsidized which causes outside control.
3) Also it is easy to get subsidiesfor propaganda but not for honest journalism.

Connecting the above three takeaways, one can infer that to produce honest journalism, it should not get subsidies and hence it should be a profit-making institution.

KUDOs please

passage says that ' It is easy to get subsidies for propaganda, but no one will subsidize honest journalism.' So to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution. So D is right.

subsidy -> propaganda
subsidy -> outside control
subsidy -> not honest journalism
not profit-making -> subsidy (who will support? No one. So subsidy is required in such case)
- This one is the key to bridge the gap.

Hence, not profit-making -> not honest journalism which implies D.

Nicely done nazgull

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.

Meaning -
Press is criticized because it caters to public demands.
It does this to earn profit.
If the press decides to cease such actions --> the only option for it is subsidy.
With subsidy --> propoganda and no honest news

It can be properly inferred from the passage that if the press is

(A) not subsidized, it is in no danger of outside control
-wrong. With subsidy there will be outside control. The argument does not say that there will be outside control only when there is subsidy

(B) not subsidized, it will not produce propaganda
- Wrong. the press can still produce propoganda to cater to public demand

(C) not to be subsidized, it cannot be a profit-making institution
- Wrong. Currently the press is not subsidized and it is profit making.

(D) to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution
-correct. There are only two ways the press can operate. Subsidy or profit making. While using subsidy, the argument mentions it will be in outside control and hence definitely won't be able to provide honest news.
The only alternative for press to provide honest journalism is to NOT be receiving subsidy.

(E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism
- the argument says if it is making a profit it can be producing honest journalism. (Again not always). But it does not have to product honest journalism as long as it caters to public demands.

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB - Can you please how option D is correct ?

My understanding of the argument - Criticism neglects that press is a profit making institution, and like any profit making institution, it has to make money to survive.
the only way to make it non-profit is to get the subsidy and control from outside.

Conclusion - getting subsidy is easy for propaganda but no one will subside honest journalism.

Thank you.