gwd-2-21

weiyu

Q21:

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.

Answer is D; I choose B;  I consider that "That plan is ill-conceived:" is the conclusion of the argument.

Need your aid..

mindfree

The plan is bad, but the goal can be achieved with another strategy. That is what the argument is about.

Factiva

ditto, the author considers the strategy on which EO will carry is ill-advised, and offer an alternative in the last sentence.

mariezhu

want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. 并不是一个ill-conceived的goal, They plan to do this by purchasing that land 才是

on one hand,  if farmers want to sell their lands, developers would outbid any other bidders.是个evaluation,证明purchase不可行

on the other hand, , actually famers will never sell any of their lands. is needed a more sensitive presevation strategy. 是advocacy of a particular strategy.

kingsoft

    我觉得选B是因为没有仔细的看完题目和选项

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

    这个明显和原文最后：And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be...矛盾

    原文不认为那个目标是不可达到的

valarie

Why A is wrong? I know D is rignt but why A is not?

Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development - it can be said it's a goal. And author wants to reject it.

these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable - this is one of the evidences that provides the ground for the rejection.

dajiao

I choose E. why is E wrong?

bryan0806

A 错在 第一句是全文的目标 且是作者想要达成的 作者reject的是 by purchasing land 这个strategy

E 错在后面一句the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

must be changed的是by purchasing land 这个strategy

these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable 这句粗体 只是作者对于by purchasing land 这个strategy 所作出的 judgment 之一 而且作者还希望farming it remains viable 持续 才不会被residential development占领

我想这题阅读是最大问题 我也读了好久 而且很多细节要注意

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-1 1:51:21编辑过]

roberta

偶也选了E

谢谢bryan0806的分析！不过偶觉得must changed的应该是前面的situation巴。。是不是these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable 不能算作situation呢，偶查了longman,situation: a combination of all the things that are happening and all the conditions that exist at a particular time in a particular place,现在看second boldface更像个judgement，不过没什么理论依据，请哪位nn来帮忙讲讲巴，感谢感谢！

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-6 1:52:24编辑过]

bryan0806

嗯 再来讲清楚点 全文结构

首先第一句是Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. 读完全文后应该就知道这是环境组织和作者的目标

然后环境组织plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it.  然而作者对于这个strategy不以为然（That plan is ill-conceived:）以下提出两点evaluations(即4楼mariezhu提出的那两点)1.if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. 2.On the other hand(由此可看出这是第二点), these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable.（只要那些地还可耕种farmer就不会卖地）

所以他要那些地仍然可耕种 但是 farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires.

farmers 需要financial resources modernization requires

所以他提议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.

我在想这题再长点可以当阅读考了