ChaseDream

标题: 求解OG12 CR99 [打印本页]

作者: VeraSui 时间: 2011-8-9 13:48
标题: 求解OG12 CR99
99. 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 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
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
不太理解这题，题目不是要weaken （irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking）吗？为什么food that is both irradiated and cooked剩的B1是两者单独加起来的综合就能weaken?这应该是证明cooking也会损坏B1啊？。。。

作者: ibter 时间: 2011-8-9 14:00
不是要证明irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking。
而是要证明this fact is either beside the point

作者: VeraSui 时间: 2011-8-10 13:00
是啊，是要证明this fact （irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking） is either beside the point ，or else misleading吗？我表达错了。。这个E怎么可以证明呢？题目意思不太懂啊

作者: VeraSui 时间: 2011-8-11 09:27
up

作者: bluejar 时间: 2011-8-12 01:24
同问

作者: ViannaLIN 时间: 2011-8-22 14:56
proponents of irradiation 的assumption是，things will be irradiated, OR cooked to end up with the same amount of B1, so irradiation is no worse than cooking. 因此要weaken proponents的观点，可以attack the assumption, 即：things can be irradiated AND cooked来损害更多B1.

一家之言拉。

作者: ruanxiaoqian葩 时间: 2011-9-5 18:22
来自：Karenzz的解答！！赞今天纠结这道题很久，最后在王可达老师的公共主页上找到这道题的详解，贴上来，方便跟我一样纠结的孩子们参考。
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 _______.
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

先读文章：食物的irradiation(用IR表示)把bacteria杀了，从而怎么着了。但是它也降低了营养价值。比如IR会摧毁很大比例的维生素B1。IR支持者说IR在这方面不比cooking更加糟糕。然而，这种说法没说到点儿上，因为IR的食品很多都是生着吃的，或者是一种误导，因为（）

／／分析：这是填空题，但是填空的内容，其实是作为原因，所以是支持题的一种变体。文章的结论句在比较IR跟Cooking之间的孰优孰劣，至少选项里得对双方进行评价，因此看选项：

A 好多IR支持者是食物分销商，能够从食物保存时间的延长方面获益。
//分析：从动机上分析原文给出的证据是否可信，太人性了，太不GMAT了。这个属于典型无关，必须立即排除以后快。

B 杀bacteria显然不是IR的唯一效果。
//分析：不是唯一效果，那还有什么效果？好的坏的？这种混吞话很让人蛋疼。

C cooking是食物准备的最后一个步骤，而IR扮演了延长易腐烂食品的保存时间，
//分析：由已知信息里我们看不出“食物准备的步骤”跟“保存时间的延长”两者之间的关系，因此看不出cooking跟IR的这两个特点有什么可比性。最要命的是：食物准备是不是最后一个步骤跟文章说的那些摧毁维生素，杀bacteria或者降低营养价值什么的看不出直接关系。这属于典型的要求背景知识的选项。比B更糟糕。排除。

D 某些cooking的方式对于维生素B的伤害甚至大于精心控制的IR。
//分析：这似乎在说cooking不如IR好，我们原文要支持的是IR不比cooking好，因为是在IR支持者发言的转折后（however）阐述的结论。D选项虽然沾边，但是方向反了。

E 对于需要cooking和IR两个过程共同参与的食品，对于单个过程中产生的维生素B损害是叠加的。
//分析：没什么感觉。但是至少说的似乎都是原文已知信息沾边的事情，唯一的新信息是叠加的问题，这个叠加的信息跟原文的沾边程度再怎么说也比ABC强。所以只能很不情愿的选了E。至于E为什么正确，我不需要知道。

通过这道题，再一次强调，GMAT考察的是我们对信息之间关联性的把握能力，这些信息本身是在说什么我们不需要关注，IR是什么？我不知道，cooking是什么？我也不需要知道。但是两者在原文结论中进行了比较。那么选项中也应该找出可以比较的那一个。D虽然在比较，但是方向反了，C虽然也在比较，但是比的内容似乎跟原文不沾边。权衡之下，只有E最象正确答案。

附录：对于特别想知道E为什么支持了原文的同学，我告诉你：E的信息让我们发现cooking跟IR完全可以同时进行，因此cooking的好坏对于IR的好坏没有影响。cooking不cooking我也要IR。即使cooking比IR更糟糕，也不妨碍IR会让糟糕的程度“锦上添花”。因此是支持原文结论：IR很糟糕。E选项的实质作用是：驳斥了IR支持者拿cooking和IR比较的前提，让比较失去意义。

作者: VeraSui 时间: 2011-9-9 11:08
啊~虽然我是在这个回复的第二日考完了，所以考前木有看到回复，不过还是3q啊，解答了困扰我很久的疑惑！

作者: 200814005 时间: 2011-9-22 10:50

来自：Karenzz的解答！！赞今天纠结这道题很久，最后在王可达老师的公共主页上找到这道题的详解，贴上来，方便跟我一样纠结的孩子们参考。
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.

-- by 会员 ruanxiaoqian葩 (2011/9/5 18:22:11)

"文章的结论句在比较IR跟Cooking之间的孰优孰劣，至少选项里得对双方进行评价，因此看选项:"
正解啊。
而且一直在V-B1的问题，所以不可能选项里面不包含V-B1（or in other words, nutrients, ）的，所以就剩DE啦。
D的方向是反的==
当然E真是有点不着边际--
凑合选E咯~

作者: 卡霍 时间: 2011-10-3 16:34
这道题让我感受到了排除法的威力

作者: chestnuteyes 时间: 2011-11-22 22:57
正确选项的原因就是：作者得出的这个结论，即所做的比较，实际上建立的基础是不统一的。
作者说：irradiation消灭的B1不比cooking消灭的多。这个比较建立的前提必须是用于cooking的food是没经过irradiation的。但实际上虽然much irradiated food is eaten raw，但还是有经过irradiation的food再经过cooking的啊，这样消灭的B1就叠加了。
所以说，cooking和irradiation根本不能用来做比较的。因此是misleading的。

作者: 韬韬forever 时间: 2011-12-4 23:18
这题让我纠结了很久，看完帖子也没完全搞清楚为什么是E。按照我的第一感觉选B，结果是E。只能强行往E上扯了

作者: alicess 时间: 2011-12-12 17:24
膜拜E。。。。。

作者: 亲亲麦小兜 时间: 2012-4-14 16:08
通过这道题，再一次强调，GMAT考察的是我们对信息之间关联性的把握能力，这些信息本身是在说什么我们不需要关注，IR是什么？我不知道，cooking是什么？我也不需要知道。

这句话好棒！做CR的时候就有这种感觉，具体在说什么不知道，但是可以感觉出来之间的关联关系，然后挑出选项。一直担心自己的这种方法是不是不正确。

-- by 会员 ruanxiaoqian葩 (2011/9/5 18:22:11)

作者: michaelwj1 时间: 2012-4-26 18:37
排除法原来这么用的...

作者: 小迪大战GMAT 时间: 2012-8-8 01:43
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 for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
NN们，能否解释一下黑体斜体字整个的逻辑思路....多谢了.....

作者: christina1314 时间: 2012-8-11 17:51

-- by 会员 ruanxiaoqian葩 (2011/9/5 18:22:11)

通过上面的解释，想了想，是不是这样：文章包含以下关系——

Conclusion1：反对Irradiation

Reasoning：IR虽然能杀菌但因为会破坏营养，所以它是“坏的”，反对之。举例说，Irradiation会破坏VB1；

Concusion2：支持Irradiation

Reasoning：IR不比cooking更破坏营养，支持之。

Conclusion3: conclusion2说的要么离题了，要么误导人的。

Reasoning：cooking更破坏营养不能证明IR就不破坏营养，IR和cooking都会造成营养的破坏（E），IR的该缺点仍在，仍因为该点而能够反对之。

作者: 姜姜 时间: 2012-8-24 17:09
我觉得逻辑的很多难题的重点在于理清各句的逻辑关系，从而找出重点中心讨论对象排除无关就很容易了。
这道题中proponents的观点是中心讨论对象，即IR和cooking对B1的destruction，however后的观点认为proponents说的fact错误点是对其比较。而在proponents前面信息是背景知识，与proponents的观点无关，
所以ABC 选项中关于说longer shelf life和kills bacteria很明显无关要排除；
D中说某些cooking的方法还是比IR危害更大，与proponents的观点是趋同的；
所以只有E中说，对于某些既要IR又要cooking的食物两者危害是要叠加的，两者比较就没有意义了，也就是说proponents的论证方向是错的（misleading），不能支持使用IR

作者: lifetree22 时间: 2013-4-2 18:54
要反对的是：Irradiation对B1的损失作用，比cooking对B1的损失作用，差不多，所以Irradition也没有那么不好。

E指出了：虽然单独看IR及cooking对B1的损失差不多，但是如果在cooking基础上再irradation的话，对B1的损失作用就加倍了。（前提是：作者认为cooking是基本的、必须的，IR是可有可无的）

作者: naryi 时间: 2013-4-3 08:51
这个是要证明proponents的说法是misleading的

作者: jay871750293 时间: 2013-6-26 20:19

ruanxiaoqian葩发表于 2011-9-5 18:22
来自：Karenzz的解答！！赞今天纠结这道题很久，最后在王可达老师的公共主页上找到这道题的详解，贴上来， ...

考试的时候可以用排除法，但是我们现在是要来分析正确答案真正的原因，所以感觉根本没有达到讲解的目的！！！坑爹...

作者: 苏幕遮sang 时间: 2013-7-20 11:10
感觉RON讲得好清楚啊，可以进行比较的前提是两者是可替代的，只要能攻击这个前提就可以了

下面是RON的原话：
when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

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