问大家两道boldface题！

lllmmm

第一道：求翻译：Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.  这完全看不懂啊

第二道：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?
D
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.
B.    The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
C.    The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.
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.
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.
不明白为什么选D啊  为什么不选E呢？

wwc008love

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.  这完全看不懂啊

犯罪学者：对于那些因犯重罪已经在监狱服刑2次，接着又犯罪第三次的那些烦人，一些立法者建议对其实行终生监禁。这些立法者认为这个政策能大大减少犯罪，因为它将让那些有着已被证明的犯罪倾向的人永远在街上消失。然而这个结论忽视了一点，在有生之年在监狱服刑两次的重罪犯人很少再犯罪。把这些人关进监狱只会适得其反，因为它将限制我们关押年轻犯人的能力，这些年轻犯人往往占重罪犯的更大比例。


第二题不知道哪两句