ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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?

正确答案: D

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 1799|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd-2-19

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-4-2 22:29:00 | 只看该作者

gwd-2-19

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.
  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.

答案是d,a怎么不对?

沙发
发表于 2007-4-3 05:00:00 | 只看该作者
第一,作者用"Would"语气,属于evaluation or judgment并不能表明肯定的“reject”;第二,“these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.”不能说是evidence. “证据”是指已经发生的事实,"will"暗示未发生,这部分只是作者的judgment
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-4-3 14:22:00 | 只看该作者
“these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.”这句话后面接了一个but,应该是转折了,可为什么答案d中有advocacy呢?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-4-28 03:13
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部