It is currently 16 Jan 2018, 13:27

### 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 [?]: 294 [6], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2004, 05:40
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 [?]: 294 [6], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10263

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2015, 10:11
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2718

Kudos [?]: 462 [0], given: 210

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2016, 08:15
saurya_s wrote:
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

tough one..took me 2mins+ to get to the answer.

author does not reject the first one. so A and B are out right away.
second one is a problem that needs to be solved, in order to attain the first statement.
C and E are out.

D remains.

Kudos [?]: 462 [0], given: 210

Manager
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 153

GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2017, 14:11
1st sentence (1st boldface): Environmental organizations plan to preserve land.
2nd sentence: EO's plan: buy land.
3rd sentence: Author concludes EO's plan wont work giving reason.
4th sentence(2nd boldface): Author gives POV of farmers ; farmers wont sell if farming is viable.
5th sentence: Author discusses ways to keep farming viable
6th sentence : An alternate approach is introduced to preserve the land based on sentence 4&5's reasoning.

A,B & C is out because the 1st boldface is a plan - to preserve the land. The author does not reject or endorse this plan, rather the author rejects the method (in 2nd sentence).
E is out, no where is it mentioned that the author endorses the plan of preserving the land, rather the methods to preserve the land are discussed.
D it is: 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.
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 153

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 688

Kudos [?]: 273 [1], given: 855

Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2017, 07:58
1
KUDOS

Environmental organizations WANT TO preserve the land. Therefore, the first sentence introduces the organizations’ goal. The second sentence introduces their plan. The third sentence tells us that the author thinks their plan to achieve this goal is ill-conceived, and why he thinks it is ill-conceived (the farmers will just sell the land to developers, and there goes preservation). The fourth sentence ("on the other hand"), is the beginning of the author’s arguing towards a different plan.

He tells us that the farmers won’t sell the land if it remains viable. That means if the lands are viable farmland, they won’t fall into the hands of developers and they will be preserved. So, he argues, a better preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers in keeping the farmland viable. That way, the land will certainly not fall into the hands of developers.

In bold face questions, make sure you analyze the role of all the sentences, not just the emboldened ones. You need to get the gist of the argument, and the gist derives from consideration of the argument in its totality, and as a unified whole.

Let’s now look at the choices:

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 author is arguing that the plan (not the goal) is ill-conceived. Nix, and don’t even read the second clause.

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

We should exit this choice at “cannot be attained”. If the author thought the goal could not be conceived, he would not bother advancing an alternate plan to meet the goal. Choice C can be eliminated for the same reason, and just as quickly.

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.

The second bold statement: "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable."

Can this bold statement be regarded as a “judgment”? Yep, because it is not a fact, it is a value judgment. But because it is part of the author’s evidence, we don’t argue with it. We shouldn’t be evaluating the quality of the argument anyways in bold face questions.

And, is the judgment a "basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy"? Yep. The author uses this value judgment as evidence to support the plan he is arguing for: assisting the farmers in keeping (and/or making) their farmlands viable (so that the lands remain beyond the “claws” of the developers, and so that the land is preserved.)

At this point, we would select choice D.

But let’s look at E:

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.

He is not arguing that the farmlands should be made unviable. He is arguing the opposite.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 273 [1], given: 855

Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 811

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 142

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

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2017, 08:54
Is the OA = D? Kindly post the OA.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
2. LSAT RC compilation
3. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
4. QOTD RC (Carcass)
5. Challange OG RC

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 142

Manager
Joined: 06 May 2015
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2017, 09:10
Can someone explain why choice B is incorrect.

The author speaks that plan is ill conceived apparently saying that goal cannot be attained.

This is the conclusion of the author.

The second is reason offered in support of that conclusion.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2017, 21:48
Can some one explain the strategy part in First??. In first boldface statement, only the goal is represented, where did the strategy part come in??

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

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 572

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 309

Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2017, 03:30
anairamitch1804

Do you mean to consider value judgement as intermediate conclusion?
_________________

Press kudos if you liked this post

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 309

Intern
Joined: 30 May 2017
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 33

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

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2018, 00:17
[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

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 33

Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the   [#permalink] 03 Jan 2018, 00:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 69 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by