ChaseDream

标题: 官卫东 13 sec5 -30 [打印本页]

作者: 麻集爱 时间: 2004-6-2 10:54
标题: 官卫东 13 sec5 -30

Q30:

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 ____e___.

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

这事咋整？答案 e 请给出详细理由。偶不选e 因为他只说到both irradiated and cooked 的food 的情况。不能确定仅仅irradiated food 和仅仅cooked food 的对比情况。偶选c 没办法觉得最优

作者: GreenHorse 时间: 2004-6-3 06:22

COOKED OR IRRADIATED ONLY: Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.

IRRADIATED ONLY: However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw,

BOTH: or else misleading, since for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

proponenst suggest that vitamin reduction is inevitable now that people cook, but they don't say irradiation can reduce further.

作者: 麻集爱 时间: 2004-6-3 10:13
?不是很明白你的解释．　好像不是很令我信服　

作者: GreenHorse 时间: 2004-6-3 10:23

辐射消毒，但损失营养。辐射的支持者说，辐射损失的营养和烹调最多一样。这种说法或者不搭界，因为有时后食品是生吃的（辐射的就白白损失了），或者是误导，因为如果既辐射又烹调，就可能损失两倍（你是不是想误导我既然我要烹调，营养反正都要损失，为什么不告诉我可能会reductions compound. 除非你保证辐射损失的和营养损失的是完全相同的一部分营养）。

我就能理解成这样了。我还没到奶牛关。

作者: tulipmontreal 时间: 2004-6-3 12:32

这是ETS典型的题目.

偶的理解是辐射的支持者认为辐射所损失的和烹调损失的一样多. 这个属于诡辩, 有2种可能他忽视了, 一种就是我生吃的食物不属于这个范畴,还有就是容易产生误导作用的就是题目提到的损失的B1 和烹调损失的B1 是不是有交叉成分, 如果是相同的成分损失说明支持辐射论的支持者的论点, 否则就是MISLEADING.

MJA 我最喜欢解答你的问题了加油!

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