请教:GWD-18-Q20

allenhb

以下是引用jandjshi在2006-6-4 12:00:00的发言：

E is not correct.

The first presents a goal that the argument endorses. This part is OK.

the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future. This part is wrong. The argument was advocating the strategy to help farmers to retain their land, not to give up their land.

赞

bubu_rachel

不明白，我也选A

i3like1105

B不对，应该是D

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion. （文章重点不在论述这个goal能不能attain, 而是提出自己的particular strategy）

candy8307

我是这样理解的：

环境保护组织想RESERVE土地，但是没有说服力，因为1.农民可以把地卖给出价更高的开发商 2. 农民从来不会卖地

第二点又推出如果农民让这些地UNMODERNIZED，那么他们就无法生活。可是大部分农民又没钱MODERNIZED。所以环境保护组织的STRATEGY是帮助农民MODERNIZED。

由此推出，这个结论是支持环境保护组织的

D 第一句话说的是环境保护组织的政策是个GOAL，但是被评价的GOAL（正确）

  第二句话提供了依据支持一个特殊的政策，这个政策指的就是环境保护组织提出的策略。（正确）

won872

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 present a goal the environmentalist want to achieve, and its two strategies are evaluated; One strategy is outbid the developer, which is unlikely; The other one is to help the farmer modernize their farmland. A conclusion is reached for choosing the second plan to achieve the goal. The second is a judgment on farmers’ reaction, judgment provide a basis for the advocacy of the second strategy. Without such basis, even if they are able to help the farmers modernize the farmland, the farmers will still sell the land to the residential developer and the environmentalist can not achieve their goal.

 

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 passage says that not the goal, the plan, is ill convinced. The second is not an evidence rejecting the main goal, but form a basis for advocating the second strategy in achieve that goal

 

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.

The passage did not endorses the goal but the second strategy. The second is not a situation the argument contends, but rather the basis in formation of the second argument.

freely

还是不明白B哪里错~

helenacd

thanks

hang13

以下是引用freely在2009-3-3 17:01:00的发言：

还是不明白B哪里错~

B.The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained

这个目标是可以实现的吧？

所以B错了

deliank

以下是引用candy8307在2008-12-3 0:57:00的发言：

D 第一句话说的是环境保护组织的政策是个GOAL，但是被评价的GOAL（正确）

  第二句话提供了依据支持一个特殊的政策，这个政策指的就是环境保护组织提出的策略。（正确）

D 不是这么理解的 应该是，第一部分present a goal------这个目标是preserve the land，注意仅仅是present the goal 而不是 evaluate the goal，事实上，评价的是那个strategies

第二部分中the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy---指的是作者支持 a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms这样的一个解决之道，那么the second is a judgment providing a basis中的basis就是说怎么去支持采取资助农民现代化农场的策略罗 自然就是首先保证耕地不被变卖

追梦爱我

以下是引用jandjshi在2006-6-4 11:52:00的发言：

I vote for D.

A: The goal is to preserve the land. The strategy is to purchase lands from farmers. It was the strategy, not the goal, that was considered ill-conceived. Therefore, A is wrong.

D:

The first present a goal – correct.

strategies for achieving which (goal) are being evaluated in the argument – correct.

the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy. – correct. Here, the particular strategy is assisting the farmers to modernize their farms. This strategy is based on the second boldface that farmers will not sell their land.

解释的真正到位，我本来也选A，自己想也想不通，阅读能力太差啦