The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion. 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 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 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.
<b> Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. </b> 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, <b> these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable </b>. 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?