BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:35 am

CR question

by aartig » Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:01 am
1.Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consider that the press is a profitmaking
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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Global
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by elias.latour.apex » Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:42 am
This is quite a challenging question, so I'm not surprised that no one has answered it yet.

The key to solving this problem revolves around a proper understanding of conditional statements. Let's imagine that we are analyzing this statement:

If John has had a heart attack, he will be in hospital.

What do we know if John hasn't had a heart attack? Some people will say that he can't be in hospital. In reality, however, he could be there. Isn't it possible that he had a serious car accident or has appendicitis? We cannot infer that John isn't in hospital.

What do we know if John is in hospital? Some people will say that he must have had a heart attack. In reality, however, that's not the only reason that people go to hospital. He might have been in a serious car accident or might have appendicitis.

What do we know if John isn't in hospital? In that case, we can definitely infer that John didn't have a heart attack. Only the contrapositive is a valid inference.

With this idea in mind, let's paraphrase the argument:

The press is either subsidized or profit-making.
The press is produces either propaganda or honest journalism.
If the press is being subsidized, then it is producing propaganda (because no one will subsidize honest journalism).
---------------------
This gives us the conditional statement we need. Some people may falsely think that if the press is profit-making then it must be producing honest journalism or that if the press is producing propaganda that it must be subsidized. Unfortunately, neither of these is a valid inference. The only valid inference is that if the press is not producing propaganda (i.e., producing honest journalism) then it will not be subsidized (i.e., it will be profit-making).

Therefore, the best answer is (D).

Answer choice (A): In no place in the argument does it say that subsidies are the only way to exert outside control.
Answer choice (B): This is one of the trap answers based on faulty understanding of conditional statements.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice says the exact opposite of the argument. The argument states that the press is either subsidized or profit-making. This answer says that it is neither.
Answer choice (D): The credited response.
Answer choice (E): This is one of the trap answers based on faulty understanding of conditional statements.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1