ChaseDream

标题: OG13 CR-101 [打印本页]

作者: yjylww 时间: 2013-6-28 21:11
标题: OG13 CR-101

101. Which of the following most logicallycompletes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteriaand thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value ofmany foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage ofwhatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point outthat irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this factis either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or elsemisleading, since ?

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are fooddistributors who gain from foods’ having a longer shelf life

(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may bepresent on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparingfood for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf lifefor perishable foods

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, evenmore 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

我的理解：食品辐照可以杀菌，进而减缓食物腐坏。但辐照也会降低许多食品的营养价值。比如说，辐照会大量降低食品中的任一维他命B的含量。支持采用食品辐照的人士指出，在这（降低食品营养价值）一方面，辐照和烹饪所起的效果差不多。然而，这个观点要么与论点无关，因为很多被辐射的食品是生吃的；要么是带有误导性的，因为……
既然是有误导性的，也就是说要否定“辐照和烹饪所起的效果差不多”这一说法。是这样吗？

作者: Tahola 时间: 2014-10-28 20:57
哇，竟然找到和我一样困惑的人，这道题我真的木有想明白
有理解的小伙伴给解答一下么？

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