The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second presents a strategy that is called sensible but for which no support is offered. The first is the conclusion reached about one strategy for attaining a certain goal; the second presents the strategy that the reasoning advocates. The first assesses the goal held by certain environmental organizations; the second presents the goal that the reasoning concludes should be adopted instead. The first is the main conclusion toward which the reasoning is directed; the second is a consideration raised in order to support that conclusion.
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. <b> That plan is ill-conceived </b>: 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 <b> a more sensible preservation strategy would be to the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability </b>.
In the reasoning above, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?