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 _______.
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
作者: lusun23 时间: 2010-12-31 09:16
Is 3 the correct answer?作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-31 09:48
4 is the answer.作者: febqq1986 时间: 2011-1-1 12:05
lz公布下答案 我觉得是1啊作者: febqq1986 时间: 2011-1-1 12:29
晕死，贴子不能编辑 重新看了两遍，觉得答案是5 最后结论分成两部分，先说之前的说法是离题的，因为很多食物是生吃，根本不用cook，之后说这个说法也有可能是误导的，那么这里要选的选项应该要和之前离题那边的原因相关，所以还是5最合适，即使cook了，也不能说B1的流失更多是cook的原因作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-1-1 14:08
I took it back.
5 is the answer.作者: lonelyorchid 时间: 2011-1-1 19:10
答案必然是E