This can't be inferred from the stimulus. If you thought this was true because of the line that says subsidies come with outside control, note that even if you read that as a conditional statement (subsidies → control), that still wouldn't be the same thing as saying that if there are no subsidies, there will be no outside control. The contrapositive of the statement in the sentence would tell us:

/outside control → /subsidies

But this answer choice confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions of this statement. So this answer choice isn't a valid inference — for all we know, a newspaper that survives by making a profit could still be vulnerable to outside control.

This can't be inferred from the stimulus. If you chose this answer choice, you might have been looking at the last sentence for support. But notice that the first part of the sentence ("It is easy to get subsidies for propaganda") isn't a conditional — i.e., it doesn't tell us that subsidies guarantee that a newspaper publishes propaganda.

While the second part of the sentence is a conditional, the most it tells us is that if the press is subsidized, it is not honest:

subsidized → /honest

This isn't the same thing as saying that if the press is not subsidized, it will definitely be honest or not produce propaganda.

This is the opposite of what the stimulus tells us. Remember that the stimulus says that if the press is going to survive, it needs money, and the two alternatives to make money are to make a profit or receive subsidies. This means that if the press survives and does not receive subsidies, it must make a profit:

survive AND /subsidy → profit-making

So the stimulus actually leads us to infer the opposite of what this answer choice says.

This is correct. Remember that the stimulus says that no one will subsidize honest journalism. This means that if the press is honest, it will not receive subsidies:

honest → /subsidy

And remember that the stimulus tells us that the only alternative to receiving a subsidy, is to make a profit. In other words, if no subsidy, then profit:

/subsidy → profit-making

We can chain these two statements together to come to the inference that if the press publishes honest journalism, it must be a profit-making institution:

honest → /subsidy → profit-making

_____

honest → profit-making

Thus, this answer choice is a valid inference.

This can't be inferred from the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that honest journalism will definitely not receive subsidies:

honest → /subsidies

Since subsidies and making a profit are the only two options for the press to survive, it follows that if the press publishes honest journalism, it must be profit-making:

honest → profit-making

But this answer choice says that the only way to make a profit is by publishing honest journalism, which confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions of the previous inference:

profit-making → honest