Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

Question

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 assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization; the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead.

(B) The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal.

(C) The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates.

(D) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered.

(E) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion

ID 01308

Similar Question  :  Different Boldface   LINK

Zarrolou · Accepted Answer

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. ( goal of the organization )
They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.( how they plan to do so )
( in this part a fact is presented, no personal opinion is expressed )
 That plan is ill-conceived :( as you can see here starts the reasoning of the author, and it starts with its   CONCLUSION  , which is going to be explained in the next part )
if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.( reason for the conclusion )
On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. ( a problem is presented )
But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.( another personal consideration that is leading to the conclusion in the last sentence )
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. 
( the author gives his own method to solve the main problem expressed in line 1 )

In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?

(A)The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization;the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead
(B)The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization:the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal.
A and B are wrong: the first one is the conclusion.

(C)The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal ; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates
CORRECT
(D)The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed;The second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered.
Support IS offered for the strategy. (second to last line)
(E)The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed;The second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion
The second is an alternative strategy, not a consideration

KarishmaB · Answer

Let's break down the argument and see what role each sentence plays.

Environmentalist's goal/aim - preserve the land surrounding the WWA from residential development
Environmentalist's strategy/plan - purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.
Author's opinion on their plan -  That plan is ill-conceived 
Reason why his opinion is so - if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.

Author's strategy/plan for that goal -  Assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability 
Reasons he thinks this is a good strategy - 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.

(A) The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization; the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead.

The author does not assess the "goal" of the environmentalists. He doesn't say whether "preserving the land" is a good idea or not. He assesses their plan. He says that purchasing that land from the farmers is not a good strategy.

(B) The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal.

Same logic as above.

(C) The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates.

Correct. The first is the author's conclusion about the environmentalist's strategy (that the plan is not good). The second is the strategy that the author supports.

(D) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered.

We could say that the first is the main conclusion but it is only a part of the main conclusion. 
The main conclusion would be - The plan of the environmentalists is not good. A better plan is to help modernise.

The second does present a strategy but support has been provided for it. So this option is incorrect.

(E) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion

Again, the first is a part of the main conclusion of the argument but the second is not supporting that conclusion. What supports that the plan is ill-conceived is this: "if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders."
The second boldface statement gives an alternative strategy.

Answer (C)

kinjiGC · Answer

Got this question in Question Pack 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 assesses  the goal  held by certain environmental organization;the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead
(B)The first assesses  the goa l held by certain environmental organization:the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal.

For both A) and B) , these are not goals, these are strategies which as per author is not going to succeed. 
 
(C)The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal ; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates ->  Correct

(D)The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed;The second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for  which no support is offered .
 Support is offered and the author says why more sensible strategy is required.

(E)The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed;The second is a  consideration  raised in order to support that conclusion
 2nd is not consideration to support that conclusion. 2nd is another strategy which is presented.

RichaChampion · Answer

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 the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

In the reasoning above, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organizations; the second presents the goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead.
B. The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organizations; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal.
C. The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates.
D. The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered.
E. The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion.

Source: Question Pack 1
Correct Answer: C

Sir,
The biggest difficulty that I faced in this question is to find the main conclusion.
I am able to eliminate Option A and Option B because Bold Face 1 is some sort of conclusion either intermediate or main conclusion. But I am still not sure to identify the main conclsuion. Is there any method to do so when such dilemma arises that what is the main conclusion in the argument.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear crunchboss , I'm happy to reply. :-)

My friend, notice that this prompt also contains an error. The error is the word I highlighted in red above: this word was missing from your post, and the last sentence didn't make sense, so I had to find this argument on another page to identify the missing word. Please be careful when you copy and paste. My friend, the GMAT CR is difficult precisely because each argument is different. We can't use any formula, because what each argument asks of us is so different. Notice that the speaker and the environmental groups have the same goal, " to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development ." The environmental organizations present one strategy for reaching this goal. The speaker criticizes this strategy, and proposes another strategy that he feels will be more successful for reaching this goal --- but they both agree on the goal. This is why (A) - (B) are wrong: the speaker does not criticize the goal of the environmental organizations because he has the same goal. I think I would say that this particular CR argument doesn't explicitly reach a conclusion. His main conclusion is not stated, but simply implied. I would phrase his main conclusion as follows: "To reach the goal, Strategy #2 is more effective that Strategy #1" This is implicit in his last sentence. Strategy #1 would be buying the land, the strategy of the environmental organizations---the speaker thinks this strategy is "ill-conceived." Strategy #2 is the one the speaker advocates. Everyone concerned agrees with the goal. Sometimes a CR argument states a main argument, and sometimes it doesn't. In this argument, the first BF is not a criticism of the goal, because the speaker agrees with the goal of the environmental organizations. That eliminates (A) & (B). Also, the first BF is not a "main conclusion" by itself: that eliminates (D) & (E). On this basis alone, we can narrow the answers down to (C). Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

mSKR · Answer

Official Explanation:

Reasoning What roles do the two boldfaced statements play in the passage? The passage starts by presenting a goal and a strategy for reaching that goal. The first boldfaced statement is a rejection of that strategy. The passage then presents a premise that supports the first boldfaced statement as a conclusion. Next, the passage describes other factors that suggest an alternative strategy. Finally, the second boldfaced statement presents and recommends that alternative strategy.

A The first statement assesses not the goal, but rather a strategy for reaching the goal; the second presents not another goal, but rather another strategy for reaching the same goal.
B The first statement assesses not a goal, but rather a strategy for reaching a goal.
C Correct. The first statement presents the conclusion that one strategy is ill-conceived; the second statement presents and advocates an alternative strategy.
D The main conclusion is not that the first strategy should be rejected, but rather that the alternative strategy should be accepted.
E The idea that the first strategy should be rejected is used to support the idea that the alternative strategy should be accepted, not vice versa.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

Hi Experts

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma   EducationAisle   ChrisLele   mikemcgarry   AjiteshArun   egmat   sayantanc2k   RonPurewal   DmitryFarber   MagooshExpert   avigutman   EMPOWERgmatVerbal  other experts

What I thought in this question was that first statement was the Main conclusion . And reason for this is I can't find anything else to be the main conclusion or the intermediate conclusion

For Second statement what I thought was it is supporting the main conclusion by giving another plan

So on that basis I marked answer as E

Can you please suggest where am I going wrong with my reasoning?

Thanks

avigutman · Answer

Vatsal7794  The problem with answer choice E is this part:  a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion 
Advocating this second strategy doesn't explain why the first strategy is ill conceived.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

Ahhhh I see. So second bold face is not giving any reason

Thanks  avigutman 
Have a good Day

KeyurJoshi · Answer

(A) The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organization; the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead.

(C) The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates.

While evaluating A and C, apart from other errors in A that I was unable to look for, there was a subtle error (At least i hope its an error) I noticed was that A talks about the goal held by "certain environmental organization" while the stem talks about "Environmental organizations". Would this reasoning be correct?

Raman109 · Answer

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
That plan is ill-conceived: Opinion or intermediate conclusion. 
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. Support the Opinion or intermediate conclusion. 
But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. - "But" we crossed the bridge. The premise for the main conclusion. 
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

In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?

Option Elimination -

(A) The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organizations (the author doesn't access the gaol. The author accesses the plan); the second presents the logical goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead. (the second is not the goal. The goal remains the same, but the second represents an alternate strategy)

(B) The first assesses the goal held by a certain environmental organization (the author doesn't access the goal. The author accesses the plan); the second presents the strategy that the reasoning concludes has the best chance of reaching that goal. (ok)

(C) The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal (something is missing in the language. Maybe while pasting, some words were missed, but high-level meaning-wise, what it is conveying is ok); the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates. (ok)

(D) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed (no it's not the main conclusion); the second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered. (No. The earlier sentence after "but" offers support)

(E) The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed (no it's not the main conclusion); the second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion (No. Its the main conclusion and its not supporting the BF1)

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards