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. 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 _______.
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 foods
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
答案选E,
不明白为什么，感觉应该选C
我的理解是：
题目的结论是支持者的standpoint站不住脚, 则从两方面来：一你这样说是离谱的（你把它与煮对比，而我不煮），因为大部分照射食物被生吃了（这显然不好）；二呢，照射食物被煮，双倍流失维他命B1。
请讨论，不知道我的理解有问题否？
应该这样理解：
人能吃的食物可分为两种：cook过的，和生吃的
原文中的proponents把irradiation和cooking比较，是没有任何意义的，因为：
对于生吃的食物，irradiation增加了原本没有的危害
对于原本cooked过的食物，irridiation使危害翻倍
不知道说清楚了没有。。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |