ChaseDream

标题: GWD 5-30/GWD 11-12 [打印本页]

作者: t5oct2005 时间: 2005-11-2 13:41
标题: GWD 5-30/GWD 11-12

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. 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. roponents 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 _______.

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

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

cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

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

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

When I first met this question, I chose C, but referent answer given is E.

When I second time met it, the referent answer given is C.

Any one can clear this doubtful answer? TIA

作者: timelyr 时间: 2005-11-10 16:16

我也选C，但是CD上的答案是E，后来看到or else misleading这句，觉得还是E比较好

作者: anchor_wan 时间: 2005-11-17 21:56
....since much irradiated food is eaten raw(is not need to cook), or else(when need to cook) misleading, since ....(should describe ...when need to cook...)

作者: hannah1112 时间: 2006-5-6 19:41
顶一下，不太懂E选项，能够解释一下吗？

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-7 02:49
X1 = food that is irradiated but NOT cooked

X2 = food that is irradiated but cooked

Y1 = cooked food that is NOT irradiated

Y2 = cooked food that IS irradiated

X1 + X2 = irradiated food

Y1 + Y2 = cooked food

To evaluate the difference between cooking and irradiating food, the
argument compares the loss of vitamin in X1 + X2 = the loss of vitamin
in Y1 + Y2, where it should really be comparing X1 and Y1.

E basically says because X2 and Y2 combines the reduction of irradiation and cooking, the conclusion is misleading.

BTW, I don't agree with 第 3 楼. Shouldn't it be "this fact is either beside the point...or else misleading"?

作者: yaoyao99 时间: 2006-5-10 05:05
P.S. C is irrelavant because the purpose of each process and the role
that each plays in various stages of food preparation has nothing to do
with its effect on the final outcome, the food that people consume.

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2006-5-11 18:57

关键理解两点：

1。答案要求或者大体模样: 辐射支持者提到的cooking和irritation没有相关性。即支持者将Irritation和cooking比较不合适。答案的切入点应该在这里。

2。E的意思是：对于两者都有的食物，两种营养的减少混合在一起。其实这句话等于没说。混合在一起能说明什么，那个过程减少营养多，混合后依然是减少多的依然多。但关键是它没有将cooking和irritation进行比较。不符合答案的大体模样。

C 便符合答案大体模样。

作者: arnie1100 时间: 2006-6-26 08:01
輻射和煮的過程都和造成B1的下降有關,而且兩種過程是獨立的 => 說明兩種過都是有危害的,並非如題說的 no worse in the respect than cooking ...,所以我覺得是E為佳 ....

作者: jimson1980 时间: 2007-5-18 15:55

作者: lesliecheung 时间: 2008-12-25 11:28

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)