Passage Summary: A producer claims that if the public refuses to buy products from companies that advertise on violent shows, it's actually a form of censorship because it results in fewer viewing choices.

Conclusion: Public boycotts of advertisers for certain shows constitute a form of censorship.

Reasoning: Boycotts lead to canceled advertisements, which causes shows to be taken off the air, thereby restricting what the public is able to watch.

Analysis: The producer defines censorship by its result—restricting what people can watch—rather than its source, which is usually the government. To guarantee this conclusion, we need a bridge that says any action resulting in the restriction of available media counts as censorship. Look for an answer that explicitly links the 'restriction of shows' to the formal definition of 'censorship.' Without this link, the argument is just a description of a market reaction, not necessarily a proof of censorship.