GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 23:11

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 586
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2004, 06:40
9
24
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:49) correct 45% (01:47) wrong based on 1358 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4234
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2004, 07:56
1
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.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 45
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2005, 18:51
1
1
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..
_________________

krish

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 307
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2007, 18:12
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.

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?

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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 163
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2008, 09:46
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
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 01:53
Maverick2008 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 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.

Can any one explain me what can be the answer?


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.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 655
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
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

New post 19 Apr 2017, 08:58
1
The answer is D.

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 May 2017
Posts: 41
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2018, 01:17
1
[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
Re: Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the &nbs [#permalink] 03 Jan 2018, 01:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.