Environmental organizations want to preserve the land - Q1 : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 21:18

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land - Q1

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 214 [5] , given: 0

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land - Q1 [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 05:40
5
KUDOS
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (03:02) correct 45% (02:04) wrong based on 781 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Right guys where can I get concept of this type of CR and practice exercise as well?
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.

Note: There is another question with the same stimulus but different boldfaced parts. Link for discussion on that question is as follows.
environmental-organizations-want-to-preserve-the-land-gprep-150141.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 893
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 06:14
A - No, the author does not feel the bold faced part is ill conceive. The author only refers to the purchase from farmers as a ill conceived idea.
B - the author does not say that the goal cannot be attained.
C - the author neither says that the goal can be attained.
E - The author is not endorsing the protection idea. He says it as a matter of factly manner.

D - Yes. It just outlines the right tone of the author.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 429 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 06:56
agree with D
Environmentalists want to preserve... --> Goal
How do they plan to do it? 2 possible strategies:
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.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 366
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 09:00
Only D possible.

Environmental organizations can not buy the land bcoz residential developers outbid any body else.
The only choice left is to maintain that land with farmers only so atleast land wont go in hands of residential developers. But if Environmental organizations want land to be at farmer's hand, they have to modernize farmers.
So "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable" will serve as a judgement that provide basis for the argumentâ€™s advocacy of a particular strategy to achieve their so-called goal.

whats the OA ?

Dharmin
_________________

Perseverance, Hard Work and self confidence

Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 166
Location: Atlanta , GA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 May 2005, 17:59
1. 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 argumentÂ¡Â¯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.
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 851
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 0

Re: 1 of 7 CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 May 2005, 23:16
This has already been discussed in the past. I have highlighted the parts for the benefit of others:

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 argumentÂ¡Â¯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.
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 48
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

30 May 2005, 17:51
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 argumentÂ¡Â¯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..
_________________

krish

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

30 May 2005, 19:31
I'll go with D.
The arument's first bold-faced presents a goal -> to preserve farming lands as opposed to those land being sold to developers. The strategies of this goal is evaluated in the argument. The second boldface is a judegment as it tells us why the strategy must be altered in order to attain the goal.

E is out as it says the goal is endorsed. But we do not have such endorsement mentioned in the argument.

D it is.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

30 May 2005, 19:32
greenandwise wrote:
Hmm...I had a really tough time between A and D and would go with A on the test but can see why it is D.

I cannot see why the answer is not A actually any help would be greatly appreciated.

- A is out as it says the goal is deemed ill-conceived. But it's not the goal that is ill conceived but rather the methods to acheiving the goal.
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 371
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 0

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 20:57
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 argumentâ€™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.

OA later~
_________________

The only thing that matters is what you believe.

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 21:05
Will go with E.

A - The second is not an evidence to reject the goal. the evidence is presented before the second sentence.

B - The second is not supporting the goal. The goal is supported in the last sentence.

C - The first is just a statement. The reasons for not attaining that goal are given after that. Hence the first is not atainable as stated.

D - The first doesnot present any strategies.
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2911
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 21:37
Straight D

First is a goal and then author evaluates this goal by presenting a strategy of buying the land.

Then author provides a self judgement (farmers will not sell lands if forming can be done) and this serves as a basis for the advocacy of new strategy (Make the farming viable and farmers will not sell the land).
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 576
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Environmental organization (boldface) [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 23:12
freetheking wrote:
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 argumentâ€™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.

OA later~

clear D.

The argument nowhere mentions or implies that the goal is unattainable or ill-conceived. So ABC are out of the window.

The argument also does not endorse the goal , it merely presents it. It also provides basis to advocate that the farmers need to be helped in modernising techniques- it does not say that farmers need not be involved in this whole strategy, hence D.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 00:28
A - Out. The goal is not being rejected as ill-conceived.
B - The passage doesn't say the goal cannot be attained. It only says the method to achieve the goal is not feasible.
C - Doesn't conclude that the goal can be achieved. 2nd BF is not a judgement as well.
E - The passage doesn't endorse the goal. It goes out to discuss the methods to achieving it and presents a better alternative.

D is best
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1415
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 08:27
I was b/w A and D... D follows the structure closer, so I would pick it. I didn't quite get A...

C and E go against the argument, because the goal said to be unlikely to achieve

In the 1st boldface part it doesn't conclude that argument can't be attained, so B is out
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 244
Location: Italy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Environmental organization (boldface) [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 10:45
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. no linkage with the works only first statement not the second

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
no the second does not rely on first conclusion then out

C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion. not both 1 and 2

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 argumentâ€™s advocacy of a particular strategy. should be in my opinion

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. no out 2 conclusion are not linked

Sorry I hope to do fine my first bold face attempt......
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 371
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 110 [1] , given: 0

Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 17:45
1
KUDOS
OA is D, thanks~!!

_________________

The only thing that matters is what you believe.

Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Dec 2006, 16:11
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 argumentâ€™s

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.
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

14 Dec 2006, 19:56
give me D!

The second bold-faced portion is :

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

What is situation that E says should be changed?
- The situation that the farmers will never sell their land? NO. The argument is not contending that the farmers should sell their land.

On the contrary, the the bold-faced portion is a judgement.

If farming is viable, farmers won't sell their lands. Thus make farming viable by assisting farmers to mordernize their farms.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 361
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

15 Dec 2006, 02:44
Agree D

First is a goal and author is trying to acheive this by buying the land.

Then after self judgment ( that farmers will not sell the land if farming is possible) ...this provides the basis of new particular startegy ( make the farming viable and these farmers will not send to anyone and thus the original goal can be acheived)
15 Dec 2006, 02:44

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 62 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Environmental organizations want to preserve the land -GPrep 6 31 Mar 2013, 03:01
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land 0 28 Dec 2012, 18:19
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land 0 30 May 2008, 03:36
Q19: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land 0 18 Jul 2007, 16:04
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land 0 21 Jun 2010, 05:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by