Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

agree with D
Environmentalists want to preserve... --> Goal
How do they plan to do it? 2 possible strategies:
1- By buying farmers' land
2- By assisting the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability
The first strategy cannot be because of 2 reasons
1- farmers will sell to highest bidder
2- farmers will never sell if land still profitable
Hence, environmentalist should focus on the second strategy if they are to achieve the goal mentioned in the first bold face.

A. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
The goal is never rejected..
B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
"cannot be attained" is wrong...
C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
"judgement disputing the conclusion" is wrong...
D. 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.
looks right..
E. 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.
the argument tells us how to support the situation, but nothing about modifying it..

so D it is..

The answer is D.

The first boldface is indeed the goal. Then the argument goes on to give a couple of strategies - buying up all the surronding land OR simply help the farmers modernize their farms.

From the strong language of the second boldface you can see that it is a judgement that supports the second strategy.

Basically the argument says the environmental organization is NOT going to be able to buy the farms outright. The developers will outbid them. The best way of encouraging the farmers to hold onto their farms is modernizing them. That will keep land away from the developers.

There is no need to change the situation of the farmers not selling their farms as mentioned in E.

A. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is
evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
The argument does not rejects the goal.
B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the
second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
The argument never says the the goal mentioned in first cannot be attained
C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second
is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
The first part is correct but the second is not as the second is not disputing the conclusion of the argument in any way.
D. 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.
This correctly identifies the two bold statements
E. 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.
The conclusion of the argument is that the solution will be to assist the farmers financially to achieve the goal. Whereas according to choice E the second presents a situation that must be changed to achieve the goal. Which is contradicting

We can outright reject A and B, because the first boldface is clearly a goal which the author does not say cannot be attained or is ill-conceived. Now similarly choice C can be rejected on the basis of the second statement that the author disputes the conclusion that the goal can be achieved. The author does not say the goal cannot be attained.

It is now between D and E. If we look closely at the second statement of E, it says that the second boldface presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed which the argument obviously does not. Actually the argument wants farming the land be made viable . That leaves us with D which we can see makes perfect sense. The first boldface indeed presents a goal which the author evaluates subsequently and the second is indeed the author's judgement which is farmers will not sell the land if farming it remains viable and he indeed advocates a particular strategy based on that which is assisting the farmers to modernize their farms.

[quote="saurya_s"]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?

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

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

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

(D) 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.

(E) 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.


Hi,
Let's go one step at a time.
A. is wrong because it isn't the goal that is ill conceived but the plan to achieve that goal.
B. is wrong because the argument doesn't conclude that the goal can't be attained. The conclusion is the last line of the argument
C. is wrong because the argument merely states a goal and then presents flaws in the plan to achieve that goal.
The conclusion of the argument is :-
a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

Apply the Why technique just to be sure ?
Why a more sensible preservation strategy(to achieve the stated goal) would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability?
Because if the farmers are able to maintain the viability they won't sell the farm to anyone and it will help environmentalists to achieve their goal.

And the second bold statement is actually the basis of this preservation strategy i.e the strategy( to help farmers modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability ) is good because the farmers will not sell their land if the strategy works.

D. is correct because of the above mentioned reasons .

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

The conclusion of this argument is that the plan formed by the environmental organizations is ill-conceived.

The first bold-face portion states the goal that environmental organizations want to achieve.
The second bold-face portion states a second reason that the plan formed by the environmental organizations to achieve their goal will not succeed.

The argument rejects the plan to achieve the goal as ill-conceived, not the goal itself. So, Option A can be eliminated.

The argument does not at any point state that the goal of preserving the land cannot be attained. Rather, the argument proposes a way in which the land can be preserved. So, Option B can also be eliminated.

The second bold-face position does not dispute the idea that the goal can be attained. It disputes the plan formed by the environmental organizations have formed to achieve that goal. So, Option C can be eliminated.

The argument does not propose that the situation stated by the second bold-face portion be changed. Rather, it suggests a way in which the farmers can be supported. So, Option E can be eliminated.

Option D accurately sums up the role played by the two bold-face portions. The first is the goal of the environmental organizations and the argument does discuss strategies for achieving the goal – the strategy of the environmental organizations and the strategy suggested by the argument itself.
The second bold-face portion forms the basis of the strategy provided by the argument. Because the farmers will never sell the land as long as farming it is viable, the argument suggests that it is better to assist the farmers in maintaining viability. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Understanding the argument -

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. Goal.
They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. Plan to achieve the goal.
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. Opinion or a conclusion or intermediate conclusion and a supporting premise for the conclusion.
On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. Judgment that supports the earlier opinion and opens doors for an alternate plan. But a condition is attached with an "ed" verbal "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. This premise highlights one of the key objections for the land to be viable.
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. - Main conclusion. The author highlights that if we can handle the key objection, this can be a solid alternate plan to achieve the goal stated in statement 1.

Option Elimination -

(A) The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived (No. The first one is the goal, and the argument presents an alternate plan to achieve the same goal); the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection. (No, the second BF is opening doors for an alternate plan that helps to meet the goal.)

(B) The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained (No. The argument presents an alternate plan to achieve the same goal. It is trying to confuse us with the opinion or a conclusion or intermediate conclusion stated in the passage. But that's not the main conclusion, which states that the plan is ill-conceived, not that the goal can't be achieved); the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion. (The BF2 supports the main conclusion, not "that conclusion," which states the goal can't be attained. In fact, there is no such conclusion mentioned in the argument that states the goal can't be achieved)

(C) The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained (ok); the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion (No. The second opens the doors for an alternate plan to achieve the goal, and it goes in the same direction as conclusion instead of disputing it).

(D) The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument (OK, But the part "strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument" is a little awkward. The first sentence doesn't include the strategies. Yes, the argument evaluates the strategies, but these strategies or plans are discussed in subsequent lines. This is the best option in the lot but could have been a bit better); the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy. (Ok)

(E) The first presents a goal that the argument endorses (The first presents a goal, but saying that the argument endorses it is a bit of an overstatement. An endorsement statement will be somewhat like this: I wholeheartedly support the effort to preserve the land around Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.); the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future. (No. The argument is not contending that the farmers should sell their land, provided falling the land is not viable. The argument is doing the exact opposite, which is the farmers will not sell the land provided that farming it remains viable.)