标题: OG12-99 求请教 [打印本页] 作者: kwai 时间: 2011-4-11 13:45 标题: OG12-99 求请教 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 proponets of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods'having a longer shelf life (B)it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradition has (C)cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a irradiation is (D) certain kinds of cooking are,in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than the 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 我不明白E选项是怎weaken结论辐射支持者的观点的，OG解释里说if the effects of radiation and cooking combine to destory more B1 than cooking or irradion alone would,then the proponents'claim suggests something that is false.这个说法好像和答案E的削弱不一样，OG的这句解释感觉并没有削弱，两者之和本来就比单一的一种cooking 或irradiaton毁坏的B1来的多。请教！！！！作者: lonelyorchid 时间: 2011-4-11 17:47
OG的届时本来就是针对E选项的解释，所以必然跟E说的是一回事儿。 题目要求支持proponent的观点，而proponent的观点是辐射会影响营养。文章提出的反对proponent的论据是irradiation对于营养的损失和cook是一样的（文章默认cook不影响营养）。所以E说，如果既irradiate，又cook的话，被损失的营养就会加倍。不知道你哪里弄错了。。。 是不是根本就没有明白题目让你干什么呀。。。 这道题的标题中的argument指的是什么，是要argue什么，你搞清楚了么？作者: kwai 时间: 2011-4-12 10:30
proponent的观点是辐射不会影响健康啊，辐射不比cook坏，我理解的是题目要反对proponent的观点啊？ 请教？？作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-12 10:40
A：说支持者是利益相关者，因而人家的观点misleading，涉及主观攻击；错（如果题目是 or else subjective, since_ 我认为还沾边）； B：只是把题干里的出了杀菌防腐，还可以破坏营养重述了一遍而已； C：C是这道题我认为最容易错选的选项，似乎阐述了一个cooking 和 irradiation的区别。但是请注意： 支持者说 irradiation并没有比cooking在破坏营养方面更严重，言下之意，就是对于eventually要cooked的食材，反正都要cooking被破坏，先irradiate一下也无妨。（注意这句话更提示了支持者默认食材都要cooked：“However，this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw”） 所以C说cook是最终环节，而irradiate只是为了在货架上存放时间长，并不影响支持者的“反正都要Cook”这个思路； D 把certain kinds of cooking和carefully controlled irradiation做对比，这个极端并不说明问题； E；对于irradiate后也要cook的食物，这两个环节Vb减少的影响是叠加的； 所以即使ir<cooking，也不好。故misleading。所以E正确。作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-12 10:43
Irradiation alone destroys X grams of vitamin B. Cooking alone destroys Y grams of vitamin B. When irradiation and cooking are combined, the combined effect would destroy (X + Y) gram of vitamin B, more than the share destroyed by cooking only. In the argument, the assumption is that irradiation ONLY destroys the portion of vitamin B which would be eventually destroyed by cooking.
Misleading!!!作者: lonelyorchid 时间: 2011-4-12 10:47
However,it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods 这句话才是作者的piont
文章的逻辑是 ： 先说irridiation 的好，然后说不好。然后说好的argument，然后说不好的argument。你要做的是说irridiation不好argument。也就是说，要支持proponent，不然怎么是complete the argument呢？
argument不是反驳的意思，而是论证的意思，所以argument可以是正方，也可以是反方，不能见到argument就觉得要反驳。。。作者: kwai 时间: 2011-4-14 10:31
万分感谢！！！ 终于明白了^_^ 但楼上的允许我再钻一下牛角尖 让我支持作者的观点irridiation没错，这样好像就是要反对支持者proponent观点了吧，不是支持，你看我这样说对吗作者: dengts 时间: 2011-4-14 10:53
You are right.Your task is to weaken proponent's argument.The author's conclusion sentence is the last sentence.However,it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods is not author's conclusion sentence!作者: dengts 时间: 2011-4-14 11:04
Fanciful!NN sdcar help us in Chinese!作者: 小福娃欢欢 时间: 2011-6-16 11:17
和这个题目耗了很久，在看了这么多NN的讨论的基础上，我自己也有了点想法，拿出来和大家分享下。
我们能不能这样理解，proponents 认为irradiation 损坏了A这个营养，而cooking要损害A+B的营养。因为 A小于等于A+B，所以题干中说riiadiation is no worse than cooking。 所以，proponents认为这个菜只要被cooking了，就少不了这A营养流失。
太惭愧了，感觉自己用中文都不能把我的想法言简意赅表达出来，希望大家能理解。 偌发现错误，也请大家为我指出。作者: bqq2010 时间: 2011-6-16 13:54
The point is " irradiation of food lowers the nutritional value of many foods" , and the Proponents of irradiation's view is beside the point. We need to support the point.