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?
For BF question, like other CR question, you need to know what is the conclusion.
Conclusion: a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.
If you know this conclusion, you would not say that the goal of the environmental organization is "ill conceived." Pay attention to details: their first plan is ill-conceived, but not their goal. If they change their plan, their goal might be successfully reached.
For the second BF, it is a judgement "Someone will/will not do something." The author uses the 2nd BF to support his conclusion for a better strategy.