GWD-5-30新看法

浩瀚的希望

以下是引用barmecide在2005-6-12 1:07:00的发言：

E百分之百正确

这道题主要是看Misleading什么，Proponents的说法是辐射造成VB1的损失并不比Cooking造成的损失多，他之所以这么说的目的，给听者造成经irradiation处理过的食物并没有比正常Cooking的食物造成过多的VB1损失印象，因此得出irradiation是可以接受的。

而E说的内容是VB1的损失是复合作用的，也就是说Cooking是在Irradiation的基础上进一步的造成VB1的流失，也就是说无论irridation造成的VB1的损失是多少，都会加重对食物VB1的流失，因而揭穿了Proponents的Misleading

而C选项说出两个过程一前一后，这是个常识，谁都知道，Proponents没有也没有必要在这个方面刻意做什么Misleading，另外如果真如Proponents想让人们理解成的那样，VB1的损失不是叠加的，前面如果已经损失过一部分，后面只是损失剩余的部分，而不是在原来的基础上累加损失更多的VB1，那么谁在前面，谁在后面又有什么关系呢？

经典！

yeehang

给大家举一个“误导”的例子吧！

某男生在海滨浴场相中了一条价值50元的男士泳裤，正准备结账的时候，售货员建议他再买一条价值40元的女士泳衣，理由是该款泳衣比那位男生买的泳裤还要便宜10块钱。呵呵，售货员正在“误导”该男生进行不必要的消费呢。

为了让这个例子更严谨一点，就加一个Assumption吧：该男生买了女士泳衣之后无人可送，且该男生没有异装癖。

ryanyong

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage腐败.  However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods.  For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain.  Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.  However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

这个观点无关（因为很多食物如果不通过辐射，他们仍会因为被生吃，而不经过COOK的营养降低过程）

同时这个观点也是个误导，因为

A.      many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life

B.       it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

C.      cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable容易腐败的
        foods

COOK是最后一步，而辐射用于增长储存时长。——实际上是说辐射的好，而空格处需要的是“如何误导”，显然需要填辐射的不好。而原文说“辐射和COOK一样的效用”，误导点肯定在于让人们以为辐射减少营养的量和COOK减少营养的量是一样的。这里特别注意，虽然原文说VITAMIN被辐射完全杀灭，但实际上VITAMIN只是营养的一个例子，还有很多其他的营养，可能辐射并不能完全降低他们。而C选项说“COOK是最后一步，而辐射用于增长储存时长”根本就和误导不误导没有关系，只说明了一个事实而已。

D.      certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

E.       for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded(C)   E

ryanyong

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage腐败.  However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods.  For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain.  Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.  However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

这个观点无关（因为很多食物如果不通过辐射，他们仍会因为被生吃，而不经过COOK的营养降低过程）

同时这个观点也是个误导，因为

A.      many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life

B.       it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

C.      cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable容易腐败的
        foods

COOK是最后一步，而辐射用于增长储存时长。——实际上是说辐射的好，而空格处需要的是“如何误导”，显然需要填辐射的不好。而原文说“辐射和COOK一样的效用”，误导点肯定在于让人们以为辐射减少营养的量和COOK减少营养的量是一样的。这里特别注意，虽然原文说VITAMIN被辐射完全杀灭，但实际上VITAMIN只是营养的一个例子，还有很多其他的营养，可能辐射并不能完全降低他们。而C选项说“COOK是最后一步，而辐射用于增长储存时长”根本就和误导不误导没有关系，只说明了一个事实而已。

D.      certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

E.       for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded(C)   E

mars_cheung

听说这题在 OG12 里面定论为 E 了，有好心人把 OG 的解释贴一下吗？

Xclann

Situation Irradiation kills bacteria but it also lowers the amount of nutrients—including vitamin
Bl—in foods. Proponents try to dismiss this concern by arguing that cooking destroys
Bl as well. That point is said to be misleading.
Reasoning    Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents' claim to be
misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating
that irradiation destroys no more Bl than cooking does, the proponent seems to be
suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated because it
will end up with the same amount of Bl either way. But if the effects of radiation and
cooking combine to destroy more Bl than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the
proponents' claim suggests something that is false.
A    This might make the assurances of the proponents less credible but it does not make their claim
misleading.
B    Nothing about the proponents' claim suggests that the only effect irradiation has is to kill
bacteria.
C    The fact that cooking and irradiation have different purposes does not indicate that the
proponents' claim suggests something that is false.
D    If anything, this strengthens the proponents' point by minimizing the relative damage caused by
irradiation.
E    Correct. This option most logically completes the argument.
The correct answer is E.

Xclann

either(condition1 raw) or(condition2 cooked)

Jasonhere

lawyer唯一失手的一次

livia2012

这道题目在OG12的第99道题，答案定义为E
我来贴下OG上面的解释

Situation: Irradiation kills bacteria but it also lowers the amount of nutrients-including vitamin B1-in foods.Proponents try to dismiss this concern by arguing that cooking destroys B1 as well.That point is said to be misleading.

Reasoning:Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents' claim to be misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does,the proponents seems to be suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated because it will end up with the same amount of B1 either way. But if the effects of radiation and cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the proponents' claim suggests something that is false.

seventhekid

[quote]
[quote]以下是引用barmecide在2005-6-12 1:07:00的发言：
E百分之百正确
这道题主要是看Misleading什么，Proponents的说法是辐射造成VB1的损失并不比Cooking造成的损失多，他之所以这么说的目的，给听者造成经irradiation处理过的食物并没有比正常Cooking的食物造成过多的VB1损失印象，因此得出irradiation是可以接受的。
而E说的内容是VB1的损失是复合作用的，也就是说Cooking是在Irradiation的基础上进一步的造成VB1的流失，也就是说无论irridation造成的VB1的损失是多少，都会加重对食物VB1的流失，因而揭穿了Proponents的Misleading
而C选项说出两个过程一前一后，这是个常识，谁都知道，Proponents没有也没有必要在这个方面刻意做什么Misleading，另外如果真如Proponents想让人们理解成的那样，VB1的损失不是叠加的，前面如果已经损失过一部分，后面只是损失剩余的部分，而不是在原来的基础上累加损失更多的VB1，那么谁在前面，谁在后面又有什么关系呢？


看了这条解释顿时豁然开朗！！大赞一个！！！