Did he not technically do 3 wrong? He Negated one subject and instead of keeping the 2nd subject as is in the necessary, he intuitively flipped irrationally to not rationally, which is not technically equivalent. The conditional statement should be Pfs --> Respond Irrationally. His version becomes problematic in the contrapostive as his statement reads "Responds rationally then policy of free speech. This is not accurate and should instead read "not respond irrationally then free speech policy. He assumed a dichotomy between rationally and irrationally essentially it seems. Would most likely still be correct enough to find the rights answer choice, but just want confirmation that I am correct in identifying a slight flaw as I've been looking out for negation/opposition mistakes of my own.

I dislike this question. Interpreting bias in this way seems a bit thick. Just because one side of an issue enjoys more support does not allow a news provider to cover or give exposure to that one side of the issue disproportionately and remain bias free. Imagine a panel debate with 4 on one side and 1 on the other of an issue. Even if these numbers were representative of the public, surely no reasonable person could conclude that the debate structure is unbiased. Bias relates to the evenhandedness of the coverage of any given topic, and a reasonable evaluation of its support, not how many supporters it touts. An argument is no less if true if it has 1 or 1 million supporters. The grand leap of an assumption that this question requires to reason that proportionally being similar or larger in the general population than in the interviews is any sort of weakener to the claim of bias is absurd. This question stupidly equates bias and representativeness. D is still correct, as all others are worse, but it is a bad question pure and simple.