Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
23 Sep 2004, 06:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
68% (02:25) correct
32%
(02:28)
wrong
based on 4253
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
If this question felt shaky,
try an adaptive mini quiz of similar problems in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →. Free plan gives 5 questions per day.
19 Apr 2017, 08:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
18 Apr 2021, 02:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
saurya_s
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Conclusion: “A more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.”
Boldface 1: Preservation of the Wilgrinn land (that’s got to be the goal referred to by the answer choices). Reading on… The plan is ill-conceived (not the goal, but the plan—argument does not argue against the goal, but does argue against the plan for achieving the goal), so, the goal is preservation of the land (First Boldface) and that’s also part of the main conclusion so First Boldface is a goal with which the argument basically agrees so A and B are not true.
Boldface 2: Doesn’t really relate to the main conclusion, so… Return to the answer choices and consider second Boldface description in remaining choices. C and D are still possibilities, but… E implies that the argument suggests changing a situation in order to make attainment of the goal possible. But the argument suggests changing the entire strategy for attaining the goal, which is not the same thing, at all—so the second Boldface part of this choice doesn’t fit. Also, the argument doesn’t really endorse the goal so much as it endorses a particular strategy by which to attain the goal. So the first part of Choice E doesn’t fit, either E is not correct, leaving us with C and D. Read Choice C in its entirety: (1) says the first Boldface presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained. Not exactly—the argument actually concludes that a different strategy is needed to attain the goal, not simply that the goal is attainable (so this part of this choice doesn’t match the argument). (2) Says the second Boldface in the argument is a judgment disputing whether the goal can be attained. NO, definitely not—the second BF in the argument suggests a reason why one strategy won’t succeed, but has nothing to do with whether the goal can be attained—the second part of this choice clearly doesn’t match the argument, at all so C is incorrect. Now look at the remaining choice, to make sure it fits: (1) Goal, strategies for achieving under consideration—YES. (2) An opinion or judgment that serves as the basis supporting an alternative to the earlier plan, but with the same ultimate goal—preservation of Wilgrinn land—YES. So, the final answer is D.
