Hi, Mankariousc,
This is a great example of clouding up conditionals with qualifying statements like "it's easy to do X" or "who would support it?" These statements interrupt your train of thought and analysis of the stimulus.
You have done a great job picking out the salient, important information here, but there is just one more step.
In fact, your observations
are the focal point of the question, but there are a couple additional observations needed.
First, let's begin with your observation.
Survival
Making Money
Well, this is true in a particular case, to wit for Profit Making Institutions.
By definition, a Profit Making Institution Makes Money:
PMI
MM
Now let's go to your other observation: "The only alternative is subsidy." First, we know that in the absence of Making Money, we necessarily have Subsidy.
MM Subsidy
Who is receiving these subsidies? Not Profit Making Institutions. In other words:
PMI Subsidy
Now you have to connect these thoughts a couple steps further. With subsidy, outside control:
PMI Subsidy
Outside Control
What do we know
for sure about Outside Control? It implies no Honest Journalism:
PMI Subsidy
Outside Control
Honest Journalism
Now, you may ask, how could I possibly expected to make all these connections and generate such a long diagram? This is where it becomes incumbent on you to try to work your way through the implications of the stimulus before jumping into diagramming. Diagramming is a powerful tool but can be rather time consuming.
See whether you can follow the train of thought by picking out the definite, important information and connecting it all together. For instance, from the stimulus, you could just observe that Profit Making Institutions must Make Money. If you're not Making Money, you're getting Subsidies and Outside Control. This makes it impossible to do Honest Journalism.
This need not be overly complex, but it is a skill you must practice. I hope this helps! Please follow up if you have questions.
