为什么“since much irradiated food is eaten, this fact is either beside the point"
所谓的beside the point到底怎么解释，应该解释为“无关紧要”还是“离题的”
misleading又该怎么解释
求高人解答我一下吧~~~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
这题我一直不太理解，题目问的是什么
为什么“since much irradiated food is eaten, this fact is either beside the point"
所谓的beside the point到底怎么解释，应该解释为“无关紧要”还是“离题的”
misleading又该怎么解释求高人解答我一下吧~~~
beside the point是离题，不相干的意思。因为很多 irradiated food 都是不用cook直接可以吃的，所以和他前面“拿这个和cook的比缺点”是没关系的。
题目就是说“这种说法不仅不具有说服力而且是误导人的，因为.....
个人倾向于E，E说的是B1的流失取决于cook+irradiate，而不是其中任意一个。连起来就是说，如果是被辐射过的生食，那么大都数是可以直接吃的（不需要cook），但辐射造成了营养流失。而对于不能直接吃而被辐射过的食物呢，也就是还要cook的，那么营养流失会更多，因为E。也就是辐射会造成VB的流失是一个既定的事实，和是否需要cook并无关系.
ding
那为什么不拿只irradiation的食物和只cooking的食物比？
这样才能比出谁更好吧~？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |