请教涛涛第2套19题，最头疼的BF题

flyingceleste

Q19:

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.

  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.这题我选了A，可答案是D，为什么？不明白，哀，BF题，真要命，还是没有领悟其真谛

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-21 18:57:43编辑过]

gonghao

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.

（总的goal，所有的东西都是围绕这个goal说的）

（ plan1：） 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. （说plan1是不好的）

 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. 这里说了一个plan2，不是国家买，而是交给农民继续耕种。因此划线部分之前都是说plan2的原因即划线部分里的why

因此划线部分之前都是说plan2的原因即划线部分里的why

－－－－－－－－－－－

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.这里的问题是1.goal本身并没有被拒绝，只是拒绝了为了实现这个goal的plan1而已。所以错了

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.这里第一句说对了。就是一个goal，只不过有两种plan，1.是国家买 2.是农民继续使用，就是不给用作居民区的发展。第二句，说是对一个特别的策略的支持。也是对的，第二个bold face是plan2成立的基础。如果农民觉的土地是可以养活的就永远不会卖，这样的话，就不会用做居民区了。然后说了一下农业现代化和土地养活他们自己之间的关系。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-22 10:11:24编辑过]

flyingceleste

赞一个，强

zhaoyak7

这样的话，B和C也比较容易排除了。我原来总觉得（on the one hand）、、 on the other hand 是顺接关系，看来在这个题目里不是这样的，甚至还有点转折，原来读的时候，到第二个BF结束时就认为两个BF都出来了，也产生关系了，后面的没再仔细看，太成问题了。

结构应该是总GOAL——二分plan1及其评价和plan的提出。

但是E的后半段，还是有点怪，the second  presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future。从字面看：第二个BF呈现了一个该论点主张的情境，这个情境就是如果（保护）目标在可预见的未来实现的话，这个情境必须要改变，还是理解上有障碍，能再有劳给解释一下吗？

gonghao

E definitly wrong

the second  presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future

means that second BF is a situation that must be changed to met the goal which described first BF , preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.

That is not a situation which must be changed but a situation ,which has feasibility to met the needs of the goal ,must be maintained in the foreseeable future

Winbolin

以下是引用gonghao在2006-7-22 10:10:00的发言：

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development.

（总的goal，所有的东西都是围绕这个goal说的）

（ plan1：） 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. （说plan1是不好的）

 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. 这里说了一个plan2，不是国家买，而是交给农民继续耕种。因此划线部分之前都是说plan2的原因即划线部分里的why

因此划线部分之前都是说plan2的原因即划线部分里的why
        

－－－－－－－－－－－

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.这里的问题是1.goal本身并没有被拒绝，只是拒绝了为了实现这个goal的plan1而已。所以错了

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.这里第一句说对了。就是一个goal，只不过有两种plan，1.是国家买 2.是农民继续使用，就是不给用作居民区的发展。第二句，说是对一个特别的策略的支持。也是对的，第二个bold face是plan2成立的基础。如果农民觉的土地是可以养活的就永远不会卖，这样的话，就不会用做居民区了。然后说了一下农业现代化和土地养活他们自己之间的关系。

 

厲害！！大牛的解說果然一點就通阿～～感激不盡！

hedge

ding

tyf250504110

up

clair1107

好东西

chenzhen1858