ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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 _______.

正确答案: E

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2059|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

我对于 GWD5-Q30 的解释

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2012-9-23 11:55:30 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
在看GWD_CR_大全的时候,看到GWD5-Q30的注解是-“无定论,算了,不管了。”。
而我搜索了一下,发现有几贴发了关于这道题的求助,也看了一下别人的答案。
我献丑来说下我的看法,各位大虾请指教。


题目:

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 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

答案 - E

简单来讲,题干的意思就是:照射杀菌但伤营养;但是有人支持照射,因为煮也伤营养。作者要反驳支持者。

作者的argument是去否定,但是要注意到的是,作者去否定的支持者理论的观点呢,还是支持者理论的内容/论据。这里有一个小差别:

比如我的观点-小明不会娶这个女生,因为她眼睛不够大。你不同意我的观点(怎么不同意下面有例子),但是你并不是跟我争多大的眼睛算大(论据)。

如何来argue观点不成立呢?作者想要说这个观点either beside the point or else misleading。
这当中有一个很重要的字else,可以运用SC的方法来看句子的构造。

either...or... 和 either.... or else ....有区别,either/or是并列连接,A或者B。either/or else是conditional clause,不是A就是B。

通过or else=otherwise 来表达,要嘛这个观点不适用,要嘛这个观点有误导性,没有第三个可能性,去彻底否定它。

用conditional clause来否定,在SC里面,同时在argument里面很重要的一点是-论据的exclusivity要一致。前半句讲它被生吃不适用,后半句就应该是----就算它不被生吃,你的观点也没帮到什么忙,因为煮前又照射了(不管破坏多少)都是破坏上加破坏,根本没一点好处。

"E. (Even if the food is not eaten raw) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded"
所以答案是E。

套用小明娶老婆的例子,你要否定我的观点,可以这么否定---小明又没有说要娶老婆,就算小明说要娶老婆,又没说一定要大眼睛的; 或者,your argument is either beside the point, since Xiaoming is a gay, or else misleading, since (even if he is not a gay) Xiaoming never claimed that he only preferred girls of big eyes.

A和B错,因为没有follow“就算没生吃”的exclusivity,同时理据上也不构成有效逻辑,
A- 支持者都是卖菜的,又怎么了,他们是可以得到好处,但是不一定他们说的观点就是错的
B- 照射除了杀菌还有其他效用又怎么了,否定不了那个观点。
C- 还是没有提出有效理据来反驳观点,---煮和照射存在于准备食物的不同阶段中和那个观点对错无关。
D- 这个完全是跟作者的argument对着干的,持相反的argument.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2013-6-3 09:37:19 | 只看该作者
居然没人回,很棒,很全面的分析
板凳
发表于 2014-3-12 10:48:36 | 只看该作者
这道题目在做OG的时候就不懂了,现在放在GWD里还是不懂,搜了一下觉得楼主的解释真的很不错~~~PS这题目真的蛮绕,很容易就做错了~~
地板
发表于 2015-12-1 13:30:05 | 只看该作者
赞赞赞,谢谢楼主。
只是还是不太明白不攻击论据直接攻击论点那部分
我觉得cr里面只有assumption需要完全充分,加强削弱我觉得能增加/减少可能性就可以作为正确答案了,那么也就是说我攻击论据不也使可以weaken结论吗?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-23 11:49
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部