For me its D. If u r able to come down to A and D then....

This is an assumption Q so we have to fill the Logical Gap here. The Columnist cites about how Democracy can be established. Then suddenly he speaks about Movies have a corrosive effect on it.

So we have to search for an option which cites the relationship between the Democracy Establishment and Movies (Not precisely).

A: Anyone who relies on movies and electronic media for entertainment is unable to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen.
B: out of scope (OOS)
C: Newspaper OOS
D: Relying on movies and electronic media for entertainment generally makes people less likely to participate in groups outside their families.
E: family is not required social bonding required.

A and D seem strong contender, but A cites about the BOND whereas D cites about the Group Participation.

We can say about
A that the guy is participating in groups but not able to bond of mutual trust with a citizen because of movies. It is the guy's problem. And how do you know he is not able to bond with others as the option mentions a citizen. May be the guy (Movie goer) is an active member in a Group but he has a problem with a certain guy. I can raise so many Q against A.

But D does not let that happen. It cuts the very first option itself by saying the movie goer does not participate in groups outside his families. You cannot argue anything to support that he can still have bonds of mutual trust as the source(Group Participation) itself is not there.

Hope this makes clear not clumsier

IMO D. When it comes down to two close answers on an Assumption question a good technique to use is Assumption Negation. Negate the answer choice and if it does not weaken the argument then it is not an assumption of the argument. Conversely, the negated answer choice that weakens the argument is in fact an assumption of the argument.

For example:

(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.

(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.

This means that the argument assumes that people that go to the movies are less likely to go to these group events. Hope this helps...

i will tell u a bang bang technique

Given:
1. not(SBMT) --> not(DS)
2. PCA --> SBMT
or not(SBMT) -- >not(PCA)
3. MEM -->not(DS)

FROM 1 AND 2 --> not(DS) is parallel to not(PCA), hence using 3 we have MEM -->not(PCA)

This is exactly what the choice 'd' says. I am sure by looking at the argument u will be able to figure out the abbreviations

Columnist: 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. It is obvious then that widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on democracy.


Desc:
Construction :

Unless its citizens have established strong bonds --> How does such bonds are formed ---> What's the limiting factor ( and that's the argument)



I read your issue - Q ) D does not include civic organizations, political parties -




Remember in these kind of questions don't go word by word - try to get a holistic view of what's going on, and what is the intent.



Which one of the following is an assumption on which the columnist's argument depends?


(A) Anyone who relies on movies and electronic media for entertainment is unable to form a strong bond of mutual trust with a citizen.
Nowhere the passage talks about A CITIZEN we are not talking about making a bond with A CITIZEN.

(B) Civic organizations cannot usefully advance their goals by using electronic media.


(C) Newspapers and other forms of print media strengthen, rather than weaken, democratic institutions.

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

This correctly, states that "Relying on movies and electronic media for entertainment generally makes people less likely to participate in groups outside their families" , The word GROUPS


Very Important - Not down this POINT



In the second line - the passage says

Civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside

Look at this contruction:

I love Jaguar, Beamer, Maserati and other top brand cars.

What does this tells you ?


Other top brand cars - that the 3 cars brands mentioned before this "Jaguar, Beamer, Maserati " are also top end cars.


Now go back to the passage

Civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside

Other groups means - Civic organizations, political parties - these two are also considered as groups.....

Remember usage of Conjunction AND attracts equally attractive objects as well as subjects.




For this reason - D is precise and the correct answer



(E) People who rely on movies and electronic media for entertainment are generally closer to their families than are those who do not.

Out of Scope