Critical Reasoning

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?

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.

I dont have the OA. Let's discuss.

crackgmat007 wrote: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?

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.

I dont have the OA. Let's discuss.

Hi crackgmat007,

The answer is D.

Environmental organizations WANT TO preserve the land. Therefore, the first sentence introduces the organizations' goal. The second sentence introduces their plan. The third sentence tells us that the author thinks their plan to achieve this goal is ill-conceived, and why he thinks it is ill-conceived (the farmers will just sell the land to developers, and there goes preservation). The fourth sentence ("on the other hand"), is the beginning of the author's arguing towards a different plan.

He tells us that the farmers won't sell the land if it remains viable. That means if the lands are viable farmland, they won't fall into the hands of developers and they will be preserved. So, he argues, a better preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers in keeping the farmland viable. That way, the land will certainly not fall into the hands of developers.

In bold face questions, make sure you analyze the role of all the sentences, not just the emboldened ones. You need to get the gist of the argument, and the gist derives from consideration of the argument in its totality, and as a unified whole.

Let's now look at the choices:

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.

The author is arguing that the plan (not the goal) is ill-conceived. Nix, and don't even read the second clause.

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

We should exit this choice at "cannot be attained". If the author thought the goal could not be conceived, he would not bother advancing an alternate plan to meet the goal. Choice C can be eliminated for the same reason, and just as quickly.

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.

The second bold statement: "these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable."

Can this bold statement be regarded as a "judgment"? Yep, because it is not a fact, it is a value judgment. But because it is part of the author's evidence, we don't argue with it. We shouldn't be evaluating the quality of the argument anyways in bold face questions.

And, is the judgment a "basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy"? Yep. The author uses this value judgment as evidence to support the plan he is arguing for: assisting the farmers in keeping (and/or making) their farmlands viable (so that the lands remain beyond the "claws" of the developers, and so that the land is preserved.)

At this point, we would select choice D.

But let's look at E:

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.

He is not arguing that the farmlands should be made unviable. He is arguing the opposite. (At Kaplan, we call these wrong answer types "180s").

IMO D

Awesome explanation. Thanks TestLuv.

Thanks Testluv,
I had answered the question D but was taken aback seeing the answer marked E.
Actually got this questions from one of the shady websites , thanx for posting the answer.
cross verifications and explanations by an expert re-assures you to be in safe hands!