Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consi

Question

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

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

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)

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. The passage states only that if the press is subsidized then there will be outside control. The conditional statement in this answer-choice does not allow us to infer anything if there is no subsidy. Perhaps there is outside control for political, not financial, reasons.

(B) No. The passage states only that if the press is subsidized then there will be outside control. The conditional statement in this answer-choice does not allow us to infer anything if there is no subsidy. Perhaps the press produces propaganda for political reasons.

(C) No. The passage states only that if the press is subsidized then there will be outside control. The conditional statement in this answer-choice does not allow us to infer anything if there is no subsidy. Perhaps the press makes a profit through the use of sound business practices.

(D) Yes.  The passage presents a chain of implications:

Not profit-making —> Subsidies —> Outside control —> Not honest journalism

This answer-choice then negates the conclusion (“ if the press is to produce honest journalism ”). By using the contrapositive, we can then conclude the negation of the premise of the above chain, “ the press must be a profit-making institution .”

(E) No. Just the opposite: if the press is to produce honest journalism, it must make a profit.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

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.

nazgull · Answer

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.

srikanth9502 · Answer

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

hellosanthosh2k2 · Answer

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).

Sateni7628 · Answer

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 subsidies for 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

devikeerthansr · Answer

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.

TheNightKing · Answer

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

aniket16c · Answer

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

anshul0130 · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards