GWD 18-20

micklefuer

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. That plan is ill-conceived: if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?

1. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.

2. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

3. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.

4. The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy.

5. The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

我选B,可是答案是D

why?

chen4574

到底是E还是D

baobaobears

QUOTE:

E 对第一个BF的解释是对的，对第二个是错的，第二个BF不是一个solution, 是一个judgment或者说是一个consideration。

但原文中不是solution, 而是situation.

 these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.

the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

对比原文，2nd BF更像是结论成立的必要条件，而且语气用词与E选项一致，所以支持选E

micklefuer

明白了，严重感谢一个！

xincanyouji

the first BF
The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument
miaomiaomiao可以好好看看这句话，这句话并不是说BF讲到一个strategy，只是说讲到一个goal, 然后讲strategies for the goal stated in the BF are being evaluated in the argument(actually, there are 2 strategies being discussed in the argument).

the second BF
the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy.

因为如果地还可以耕的话，农民就不会卖地，所以就不会有环境问题，所以这样就可以达到环抱的目的，正是因为这个judgment，才引出了第二个strategy，就是帮助农民。

因为如果地还可以耕的话，农民就不会卖地，所以就不会有环境问题，所以这样就可以达到环抱的目的，正是因为这个judgment，才引出了第二个strategy，就是帮助农民。

E 对第一个BF的解释是对的，对第二个是错的，第二个BF不是一个solution, 是一个judgment或者说是一个consideration。

xiaoxiaoqing

我怎么觉得是E

d答案里，第一个bf讲presents a goal, strategies for...第一个只讲到goal并没讲strategies，接下来没有bf的话，they plan to。。。才是讲strategy

e答案里说这第一个bf是这个argument认可的goal，没有问题

第二个bf是说农民考土地生存，不会卖地，提供了一个situation就是整个argument的主张需要修改的地方，

And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

就是这个环保计划需要更明智，既帮助农民有度的实现现代化来以求生存，又满足了环保的goal

就是这个环保计划需要更明智，既帮助农民有度的实现现代化来以求生存，又满足了环保的goal

这题讨论好少，希望大家多说几句啊。望指正！

这题讨论好少，希望大家多说几句啊。望指正！

sunnylee

I dont think there are second strategy.that is, the author refute one strategy from two respects. I support B

Economics

Part 1:
Goal (first boldface): Preserve land, prevent residential development
Strategy X: buy land from farmers
Problem with strategy X: developers will outbid the organization.
Conclusion: strategy X is not feasible

Part 2:
Judgement (second boldface): farmers will not sell land if farming remains viable
Strategy Y: aid farmers to maintain viability of farming the land
Conclusion: strategy Y is more sensible than strategy X

Problem with B: the second boldface doesn't support the conclusion that strategy X is not feasible. The reason stated in the third sentence does.
D highlights the structure: 1 goal, 2 strategies, a conclusion that favors one strategy over the other.