|
101. Which of the following mostlogically completes the argument?
Theirradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it alsolowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys asignificant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents ofirradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect thancooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiatedfood is eaten raw, or else misleading, since
(A) many of the proponents ofirradiation are food distributors who gain from foods’ having a longer shelflife
(B) it is clear that killing bacteriathat may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
(C) cooking is usually the final step inpreparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longershelf life for perishable foods
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, infact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiationis
(E) for food that is both irradiated andcooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individuallyis compounded
ReasoningWhich option most logically completes the argument? For theproponents’ claim to be misleading it needs to be suggesting something aboutirradiation that is false. By stating that irradiation destroys no more B1 thancooking does, the proponent seems to be suggesting that any food that is goingto be cooked might as well be irradiated because it will end up with the sameamount of B1 either way. 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.
想请问一下，为什么IR不比cooking杀死的多，就说明这两个方法结合起来杀死的和cooking杀死的一样多呢？难道不是如何情况下两种方法结合杀死的都应该更多吗？ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-6-15 10:38:20
收藏
收藏
楼主