ChaseDream

标题: 求助 OG 13 CR 101~各种不明白!求解答~ [打印本页]

作者: joyzhang1990    时间: 2012-12-3 19:30
标题: 求助 OG 13 CR 101~各种不明白!求解答~
101. 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 Bl 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 Bl than carefully controlled
irradiation is
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process
individually is compounded

答案选E,但是看了解析,自己还是琢磨不透啊。没看懂是个啥逻辑链啊~求各位帮忙分析下~谢谢
作者: joyzhang1990    时间: 2012-12-3 19:37
请大家帮看看分析下吧。马上要考的人伤不起了~呜呜
作者: leoxan    时间: 2012-12-3 21:50
好吧,同问~~纠结了好久的题目~
作者: joyzhang1990    时间: 2012-12-3 22:03
好吧,同问~~纠结了好久的题目~
-- by 会员 leoxan (2012/12/3 21:50:15)



我是中文,英文都慢慢翻译,体会了,还是觉得无厘头啊。你有这种感觉吗?

来人啊,求救啊。逻辑妹妹求救啊
作者: jeffjarrett    时间: 2012-12-4 10:36
compounded这个单词很关键。考场上不到2分钟分析逻辑链不一定是一个适合所有人的方法。

A说irradiate可以让食物的一个长的保质期,B说irradiation对食物的作用,C说cooking和irradiate对食物的作用的不同,D说cooking比控制下的irradiate对食物VB1的损害更大,E说食物既irradiate又cook,VB1在这两个单独过程中的损害是有加成的。

原文的结论是:“irradiation在process food上对VBI的damage程度不会超过cooking在process food上对VB1的damage程度”这一说法并不靠谱。

用无关词排除法,留下D和E,D方向错了,因此选E。

硬要分析逻辑链也是ok的。

结论:“irradiation在process food上对VBI的damage程度不会超过cooking在process food上对VB1的damage程度”这一说法并不靠谱。

前提:irradiation会损害食物中的VB1;much irradiated food is eaten raw。

选E是因为,尽管much irradiated food is eaten raw,但是仍然存在个别irradiated food需要cooking。如果这两个过程都会损害VB1,那么irradiated+cooking对食物VB1的损害肯定大于只cooking对食物VB1的损害。
作者: joyzhang1990    时间: 2012-12-5 20:05
标题: 哇~谢谢你哇~我仔细想想,体会下~
谢谢!
作者: 雨夜眠    时间: 2013-8-8 15:22
jeffjarrett 发表于 2012-12-4 10:36
compounded这个单词很关键。考场上不到2分钟分析逻辑链不一定是一个适合所有人的方法。A说irradiate可以让 ...

赞同Jeff所说。

务必要理解compounded这个词的意思。主要有两层意思:第一是混合物;第二是加重。
为什么这里不是通常所说的混合?混合是用在两种或者以上的物质组合在一起,而这里所说的是Reduction of B1的效果。
只有明白了这个意思,才能真正理解OG的解释:
But if the effects of radiation and cooking combine todestroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the proponents’claim suggests something that is false.

另外,如果考场上不理解compound这个意思,就不建议按照逻辑链的方法去做了,考场上选对才是硬道理。
作者: 鸢儿gmat    时间: 2013-9-24 07:30
People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?


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.
作者: 鸢儿gmat    时间: 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

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.


作者: 温润的风    时间: 2016-3-2 19:12
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

好赞 解释的很清楚例子也很好
作者: MasonC    时间: 2016-5-11 16:15
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

nice!!!Very Clear!
作者: helloken    时间: 2016-5-22 22:48
jeffjarrett 发表于 2012-12-4 10:36
compounded这个单词很关键。考场上不到2分钟分析逻辑链不一定是一个适合所有人的方法。A说irradiate可以让 ...

不敢苟同,这里有个either...or else的结构,前后是并列关系,后一个since跟前一个since没有直接联系。
beside the point 的意思是离题或者无关紧要。
例句:Always remember: the journey is all. The destination is beside the point.
在本题中应该理解为因为需要比较cooking和irradiation,许多需要irradiate的食物是生吃的,谈不上两者比较;
misleading的意思是误导,@鸢儿gmat 的解释比较合理,proponents这么一说忽略了两者叠加效果更强的情况,进而误导人们不加思考地随便使用。
作者: SeanF    时间: 2016-7-29 20:50
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

very clear example!
作者: Ryanner    时间: 2016-8-8 21:02
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:30
People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leach ...

同意!               
作者: Evangeline璇    时间: 2016-8-13 10:36
有点不太理解题干里的this fact is either...or else misleading之间的关系
前者说的是这个论断偏离主题 后者说误导?
作者: 1ting    时间: 2016-9-20 09:56
我是这样理解的:
either...or...表示一个并列关系,要么是beside the point,要么是misleading
第一种情况,beside the point,比较没有意义,为什么呢,因为很多时候irradiated food是生吃的,irradiation和cooking两者不是二选一的关系,所以没有必要进行比较。
那第二种情况,or else,如果不是生吃的呢,那要比较的就不应该是irradiation和cooking啦,应该比较irradiation+cooking和cooking啊,明明两个加起来V1损失更严重啊,你比较cooking和irradiation不是误导人么!misleading.所以选E。
作者: 1ting    时间: 2016-9-20 10:07
补充说明一下C为什么不对。C客观地陈述了一个事实:cooking是让食物能够食用的最后一个环节,irradiation是为了延长易腐食物的保存时间。
它没有照顾either...or...这种表达的内在并列关系,也没有涉及两者对V1的破坏程度。
作者: 巷说百物语    时间: 2016-9-24 11:26
1ting 发表于 2016-9-20 10:07
补充说明一下C为什么不对。C客观地陈述了一个事实:cooking是让食物能够食用的最后一个环节,irradiation是 ...

同意!               
作者: 四个圈    时间: 2016-9-27 12:59
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

看一下!               
作者: 2tackle    时间: 2016-10-2 19:26
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

同意!               
作者: 御寒    时间: 2016-11-24 21:23
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:31
类比:

Dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

同意!               
作者: Scottmsa    时间: 2017-1-19 20:50
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:30
People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leach ...

这个解释的到位,前面那个排除法+硬解释不太对。
作者: hxexy    时间: 2017-3-15 13:07
鸢儿gmat 发表于 2013-9-24 07:30
People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leach ...

引用得很好 如果有reference就更好了 建议大家看一下原版 解释的更完整 https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/gmatprep-irradiation-of-food-t9630.html
作者: whatupbro233    时间: 2017-5-16 23:54
1ting 发表于 2016-9-20 09:56
我是这样理解的:
either...or...表示一个并列关系,要么是beside the point,要么是misleading
第一种情况 ...

这才是本题最佳的解释,结合语法与逻辑!
作者: Vivianwyd    时间: 2017-8-11 16:21
1ting 发表于 2016-9-20 09:56
我是这样理解的:
either...or...表示一个并列关系,要么是beside the point,要么是misleading
第一种情况 ...

太有道理啦!终于明白了

作者: Ettorier    时间: 2017-8-20 22:15
雨夜眠 发表于 2013-8-8 15:22
赞同Jeff所说。

务必要理解compounded这个词的意思。主要有两层意思:第一是混合物;第二是加重。

同意!               
作者: vicar    时间: 2020-2-22 15:16
我的理解是 irradiation food 要么生吃,要么熟吃(irradiation 不改变吃法),生吃的根本没法比较,所以beside the point,熟吃的是错误的,因为两者叠加损失营养更多,所以是misleading





欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3