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?
Answer is D; I choose B; I consider that "That plan is ill-conceived:" is the conclusion of the argument.
Need your aid..
want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. 并不是一个ill-conceived的goal, They plan to do this by purchasing that land 才是
on one hand, if farmers want to sell their lands, developers would outbid any other bidders.是个evaluation,证明purchase不可行
on the other hand, , actually famers will never sell any of their lands. is needed a more sensitive presevation strategy. 是advocacy of a particular strategy.
我觉得选B是因为没有仔细的看完题目和选项
B说The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained
这个明显和原文最后：And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be...矛盾
原文不认为那个目标是不可达到的
Why A is wrong? I know D is rignt but why A is not?
Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development - it can be said it's a goal. And author wants to reject it.
these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable - this is one of the evidences that provides the ground for the rejection.
A 错在 第一句是全文的目标 且是作者想要达成的 作者reject的是 by purchasing land 这个strategy
E 错在后面一句the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.
must be changed的是by purchasing land 这个strategy
these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable 这句粗体 只是作者对于by purchasing land 这个strategy 所作出的 judgment 之一 而且作者还希望farming it remains viable 持续 才不会被residential development占领
我想这题阅读是最大问题 我也读了好久 而且很多细节要注意
偶也选了E
谢谢bryan0806的分析！不过偶觉得must changed的应该是前面的situation巴。。是不是these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable 不能算作situation呢，偶查了longman,situation: a combination of all the things that are happening and all the conditions that exist at a particular time in a particular place,现在看second boldface更像个judgement，不过没什么理论依据，请哪位nn来帮忙讲讲巴，感谢感谢！
嗯 再来讲清楚点 全文结构
首先第一句是Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. 读完全文后应该就知道这是环境组织和作者的目标
然后环境组织plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. 然而作者对于这个strategy不以为然（That plan is ill-conceived:）以下提出两点evaluations(即4楼mariezhu提出的那两点)1.if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. 2.On the other hand(由此可看出这是第二点), these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.（只要那些地还可耕种farmer就不会卖地）
所以他要那些地仍然可耕种 但是 farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.
farmers 需要financial resources modernization requires
所以他提议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.
我在想这题再长点可以当阅读考了
非常感谢bryan0806的透彻的分析！！
是的，仔细阅读是很重要的说，偶发现自己原先的理解正好反了，文中说“But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized”可偶开始把not漏看了
对E选项偶现在的理解是：既然原文说farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized，即 如果农场不现代化,那么耕作将会是不可行的，那么农民可能就会把农场卖了，这样看来要assist the farmers to modernize their farms，那么农民的土地就有能力继续耕作，因此农民就不会卖掉土地了。所以E错在the second presents a situation that the argument must be maintained，而非changed!
请大家多多指正，谢谢！
strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument
这句话怎么分析？啥意思？谢谢先！
The first presents a goal, strategies( for achieving which) are being evaluated in the argument
Here, which refers to a goal. “为达到这个目标的策略在文中做了评价”。
我有点糊涂了，On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. 这句到底是支持哪一方的？如果是与 if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.这句并列的原因，那么怎么会是a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy？
望nn指点
非常感谢bryan0806的分析！
对于楼上的疑问：
these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable与if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders不是两个相互独立的并列的原因，其实是作者反对原来的方案并且提出新的建议的依据。
复杂啊，你说ETS弄这些这么绕人的东东出来，意义究竟何在呢！实际的商业用途上不会用得到的！！！！
我有点糊涂了，On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. 这句到底是支持哪一方的？如果是与 if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.这句并列的原因，那么怎么会是a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy？
望nn指点
这道题做了好几遍，总算明白了。
这里E选项中前半句说得是strategies，注意这里用了复数。也就是说文中提出不只一个策略。所以后半句说得辩护者的particular策略是指文章最后一句作者提出的建议，即a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability，而不是前面的那个plan。
ETS 弄这些这么绕人的东东出来，意义究竟何在呢！实际的商业用途上不会用得到的！！！！
一定有用. 我就天天在用. 别人讲了一堆, 3 秒之内要反应他的逻辑在哪(有时根本没逻辑), 及时作出准确判断. 不然你就头头转吧. 没有ETS 分数来告诉你.
(1 this is the goal in the argument) Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.
(2 this is the plan for the goal, call strategy) They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.
(3 this the evaluation of the plan, NOTE, the goal is not ill-conceived, instead )That plan is ill-conceived:
(4 Reason#1 for the ill-conceive plan) if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders.
(5 Reason #2 for the ill-conceived plan, it also a middle conclusion) On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.
(6 basis for the conclusion(reason#2) But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.
(7 basis leads to the new "strategy" because reason#2 may not be ture. In order to make reason #2 true, the argument brings in a new advocacy of a particular strategy.) 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.
This is why I think D is the best choice. I wrote a Chinese version. I lost the old copy, no energy to type in all Chinese again. Sorry.
最终的目的是preserve land?
如果assist modernize的话，农民的maintain viability得需求就增加，就preserve了？
望指教。。。
mindfree is NN!
He explained all the choices in one sentence.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |