Clearly, a democracy cannot thrive without effective news media.
Conclusion (Clearly)
A democracy cannot thrive without effective news media.
Evidence (after all)
A democracy cannot thrive without an electorate that is knowledgeable about important political issues.
An electorate can be knowledgeable only if it has access to unbiased information about the government.
Evaluate
On Sufficient Assumption it's always a great idea to ask ourselves whether there's a New Concept in the Conclusion (because it basically must be in the correct answer).
This conclusion talks about "effective news media", but none of the evidence says anything about effective news media, so effective news media must be in the correct answer.
That alone actually gets rid of 3 of the 5 answers.
Since we see conditional logic and repeating symbols here, this argument is a good contender for diagramming. The two premises chain together, via the overlapping ingredient of "an electorate being knowledgeable".
The conclusion is trying to prove that: no effective -------------------------> dem can't news media thrive
The evidence has provided us with this subset of that logic path: no acc to --> elect not --> dem can't unbiased knowledg thrive
So the correct answer has to give us that missing piece: no effective --> no acc to news media unbiased
If we don't like diagramming, then we can use our principle of Mentioned Twice? That'll Suffice.
The concepts of "democracy cannot thrive" and "knowledgeable electorate" each appear twice, so they are not missing links. That tells us that the missing link is between "effective news media" and "access to unbiased information".
Goal
Let's look for, , or its contrapositive, .