Question

Journalist: A free marketplace of ideas ensures that all ideas get a fair hearing. Even ideas tainted with prejudice and malice can prompt beneficial outcomes. In most countries, however, the government is responsible for over half the information released to the public through all media. For this reason, the power of governments over information needs to be curtailed. Everyone grants that governments should not suppress free expression, yet governments continue to construct near monopolies on the publication and dissemination of enormous amounts of information.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the journalist’s argument?

(A) The freedom of the marketplace of ideas is in jeopardy.
(B) Preserving a free marketplace of ideas is important.
(C) The control that governments have over information needs to be reduced.
(D) Ideas that have malicious content or stem from questionable sources can be valuable.
(E) Governments have near monopolies on the dissemination of many kinds of information.

Answer 1

The journalist's argument concludes that the government's control over information should be lessened to maintain a free marketplace of ideas.

Step-by-step explanation:

The conclusion of the journalist's argument is that the control that governments have over information needs to be reduced. This is directly derived from the journalist's assertion that a free marketplace of ideas is essential for all ideas to receive fair consideration and that even those ideas that might be prejudiced or malicious can lead to positive outcomes. The journalist points out the contradiction in governments' roles where they are large disseminators of information through media while simultaneously being expected not to suppress free expression. This leads to the journalist's conclusion that the government's power over information should be curtailed to preserve the dynamics of a free and unbiased flow of ideas.