gwd-18-20

carol1216

Q20:

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?

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 first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.

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 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.

我选a，答案是d,why?

bigtone

我开始也选的A，不过现在我感觉还是D对。事实上，作者1）并不认为这个goal有问题，而是认为它的策略（第2句话）有问题；2）并且提出了新的策略解决这个问题 。所以A不对。B违反1),C违反2)也不对。而E与题意不符，作者的策略并没有要求农民卖土地。
而D项是最好的。

布瓜丫丫

我觉得从第一句话就可以选出答案，这是一个Environmental organizations 提出的目标也是一个策略，但是这个目标或策略是否能不能够实现还不知道呢，所以后面是对这个目标的一个分析评价。

joyceorange

以下是引用carol1216在2005-12-12 1:15:00的发言：

Q20:

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?

1. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
2. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
3. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
4. 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.
5. 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.

我选a，答案是d,why?

作者并没有要reject the plan，而是支持a more sensible preservation strategy 。另外，第二句话准确地来讲是judgement，而不是evidence.

andylouis

同问？？？、

kevinling

我认为E是正确的！

1. 第1句boldface只是提出goal，并没有提出strategies(strategy是在文章第2句中才提到"They plan to do this by ...")
2. 第2句boldface 由on the other hand开头结合上下文，可见这句应该是strategy 要遇到的另一种情况(在上文已经说了一种情况:highest bidder...), 然后后面的But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. 才是D所说的a judgment providing a basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy

不知道我这样理解对不对? 望NN给与指正

ice_mochabj

相当同意carol的看法，第2句话是judgement, 因为前一句，That plan is ill-conceived: ...表达作者的judgement, 然后. On the other hand, 表达另一面的judgement. 我的理解。

xdffans

以下是引用carol1216在2005-12-12 1:15:00的发言：

Q20:

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?

1. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.
2. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
3. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
4. 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.
5. 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.

环境组织想要...  他们 计划从农民手里买下土地的方式来实现这个目标. 这计划有问题的:因为 ...  另一方面, (转折反对"计划有问题"一说) 农民永远不会卖土地, 只要土地保持viable.  但土地不现代化就无法保持viable , 而大多数农民没有财源实现现代化要求.而这恰恰就是为什么一个更sensible的 preservation策略会帮助农民实现土地现代化从而保持viable.

环境组织想要...   - 一个目标,作者认为能用策略来实现. (Eliminate AB)

另一方面, 农民永远不会卖土地, 只要土地保持viable.  - 一个论断,用来支持作者的观点"能用策略来实现".

Therefore, the answer should be D.

sch

这题似乎比一般的boldface难一点.一般情况下,2个boldface还是相对逻辑关系比较紧密的.
这题里面,2个boldface其实关系没有那么紧密,分属不同的2个推理链.

第一个是goal,那也不去多说了.关键是2

2提出问题的另外一方面: 农民不会卖土地,只要种地还能养活人,但是只有农业现代化,才能使得种地事业继续养活人.问题是现在大部分农民缺钱去进行现代化,所以环保团体的其中一个比较好的策略就是帮农民现代化.

====>帮农民现代化了---->农民种地可以继续某生了----->种地一旦可以继续养活人谋生,农民就不会卖地了.

环保团队帮农民现代化,是一个策略.
种地可以养活人的话,农民不会卖地,是鼓吹这个策略的前提依据,如果这个依据不成立,也别鼓吹什么帮农现代化了,农民怎么说都会卖地.

所以可以判断D正确.

至于E,说2是一个情况,什么情况呢?(argument主张)如果goal要实现,就必须改变的情况 (goal是什么???goal是防止土地被住宅化)     ====>按照E的说法是说: 为了防止土地被住宅化,必须改变"只要种地可以养活人,农民就不会卖地"这一个情况---------------->完全扯不到一起去

sch

继续说
A, 说second是作为一个rejection的依据.没有看到有啥rejection. rejection在以前面一段的,这里是on the other hand,没有rejectoion
B, second是一个结论的support,有点迷惑性了. 但是我们发现这里提到的conclusion是指的什么呢? 指的是"the plan is ill-conviced",而不是帮农现代化.
   
    (The first presents a goal that
the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason
offered in support of that conclusion.)
C,上来就说,goal是被认为可以实现的,second是反过来,认为goal不能实现-----这个完全就是胡说八道了.