It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 20:35

### 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 surrounding the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 281 [6], given: 0

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 06:40
6
KUDOS
21
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
http://gmatclub.com/forum/environmental ... 50141.html

Kudos [?]: 281 [6], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 07:01
Guys,

S15-Q23. 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.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 09:03
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development........this is the ultimate goal which Environmental organizations want to achive.

these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable........this is the argument given to adopt the alternative choice to achieve the goal.

Now lets check our options

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.
first only presents the goal...so out

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
goal can be achieved...so out

C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
first part is ok....the second is a judgment disputing that conclusionâ€¦ NO....out

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.
seems to be correct....hold on

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.
second does not give any situation but a fact which will support the alternate strategy.

so D is my PICK.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 542

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

Schools: MIT Sloan
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 23:06
I go with E

The 1st statement is clearly accepted by the argument - worded as 'The first presents a goal that the argument endorses'

Somehow uneasy with D,

the 1st bolded statement does not give out any strategies as pointed out by D.

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2005
Posts: 17

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 12:45
A) the plan of buying it from farmers is ill conceived NOT the goal - incorrect
B) the first part is not a conclusion - incorrect
C) the first part is not a conclusion - incorrect
D) first part is ok since it evaluates the strategies for attaining the goal...ie. buying it from farmers
the judgment or opinion of buying it from farmers is actually provided in the second part
correct
E) endorse = support/approve
the argument does not endorse the first goal since it states that "a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers..." rather than have environment orgs preserve land. And we know that preserving land is not equal to farmers owning the land b/c they want to buy it from them
- incorrect

I pick D

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 320

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2007, 01:22
dvtohir wrote:
Guys,

S15-Q23. 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
The first presents a goal and it is not endorses by the argument and the second presents a strategy that should be adopted, and not change, inorder to attain the goal . Hence Choice E is incorrect.

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangkok
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2007, 08:20
Q19:
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.
_________________

cool

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 851

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2007, 10:34
E it is...A is wrong because the argument never says that tthe goal cannot be achieved...it just says that the plan to achieve that goal is ill-conceived.

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 467

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

Location: united states
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2007, 22:29
jet1445 wrote:
Q19:
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.

It has to be between C,D and E. C is out because it talks about disputing the conclusion.

can someone tell me why D is wrong and E is right. I can't find enough reasons to strike D off.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 08:29
shoonya wrote:
jet1445 wrote:
Q19:
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.

It has to be between C,D and E. C is out because it talks about disputing the conclusion.

can someone tell me why D is wrong and E is right. I can't find enough reasons to strike D off.

Farmers will NOT sell the land till the time farming is VIABLE.

Farming will NOT remain viable UNLESS it is modernized. This is THE SITUATION WHICH MUST BE CHANGED if the goal is to be met in the foreseeable future ----- and this is the matter of choice E, the right answer.
Also it's an important fact to notice that the FIRST BF is a GOAL that the argument ENDORSES as stated in choice E (as opposed to it being just a GOAL as stated in choice D).

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 14:27
D for me.
A ,B,C are wrong as it never says that the goal can not be attained. Instead it says that the goal can be achieved with a different strategy.
E is wrong as second boldface does not need to be changed but followed.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1436

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 15:11
D for me

A and B are out

doesnt reject or say it is ill conceived it supports that goal, just not the same means

C is out because the 2nd claim is not disputing the first

E is out because " these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable" is not a situation that needs to be changed

D is good

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 315

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 15:12
The answer is D as far as I am concerned.

A and B are clearly wrong because this argument does not say that the goal is ill-conceived or cannot be achieved. The whole argument is about trying to give suggestions to achieve the goal of preserving the land.

C is wrong because farmers not selling land means the goal of preserving the land can still be achieved. Also, nowhere does this argument conclude that the goal can be attained. There is a helpful suggestion, no final conclusion anywhere.

D is correct because the first bolded statement does give the goal. The argument then suggests two strategies (buy all land or modernize farming) of achieving that goal. The second bolded statement then makes a judgement that "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land" for which the strategy of modernizing farming is given.

E is wrong because again the farmers do not have to sell the land to achieve the goal of preserving the land.

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

Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 15

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 17:02
The argument is between D and E. I'm torn but if I had to guess I would say D because the last part of E says: "the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future." The goal to be met in the forseeable future is preservation and if that's the goal why would the farmers change their goal of farming the land.

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

Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 15

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2007, 17:04
A is wrong because the argument isn't rejecting preservation as ill conceived just the idea of the organization trying to buy the farmers out.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 325

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2007, 00:56
Q8:
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.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 325

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2007, 04:12
How E??
Does the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 312

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2007, 04:54
sidbidus wrote:
How E??
Does the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

First boldface statement presents a GOAL.........second presents a condition, which has to be changed if stated goal needs to be achieved!

If you read the argument beyond 2nd bold face, it provides the solution that how this bottleneck/situation can be over come?

I hope this will help!

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 146

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

Schools: UCLA Anderson School of Mgmt (FEMBA Class of 2013)
WE 1: 7.5 years in Engg. Consulting
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2007, 20:19
Conclusion of this qn:
Therefore, a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

First Bold: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. This basically is going against the conclusion because to achieve this envn organization is planning to buy from farmers and not helping them to modernize their farms.

Second Bold: farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. So farmers will never sell their land if they get enough financial help to do farming and make the plan viable. That is it supports the conclusion.

So, Bold 1=> against conclusion
Bold => supports conclusion

Looking at the choices B looks like the answer to me. Hope this makes sense.

Soomodh

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 463

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 16:08
E.

I don't think the arguments concludes that the goal can be attained. It mentions what the goal is, then presents reasons why it wont be reached then, at the end, it shows a reason why it may be possible to achieve the goal after all. Therefore, I don't think C is an option.

I don't think it can be A either because the goal is not perceived as ill-conceived, just the plan.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 97

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 18:10
sidbidus wrote:
Q8:
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.

I go for D

A is clearly false, the goal is not dismissed as ill conceived.
B is clearly false, the conclusion is precisely the opposite.
C is false, the second statement does not dispute the attainability of the conclusion.

Thus we are left with D and E.

I don't think E is correct. It states "the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future." The statement "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable." does not set out a situation that is to be changed.

D however seems correct - "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."

The first statement does indeed present the goal, and the argument is indeed evaluating various strategies. The second statement is indeed a judgement "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming remains viable", and is indeed the basis for the argument's preferred course of action.

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

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the   [#permalink] 15 Nov 2007, 18:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 68 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by