GWD-5-Q30:

Q30:

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

   Answer: e

我选的C

请问为什么选E, 谢谢

这里的however后面应该是反对支持照射者的观点。

支持照射者的观点是，照射和煮一样都会破坏VB1

但是however后面第一点说，这个是在讨论之外了，因为被照射的食物大多本身都是可以生吃的，意思是本来不煮就能吃呢，VB1是不受破坏的，给你一照，反而被你大量破坏了。这里说了照射的坏处。

C说煮是准备食物的最后一步，照一下是为了确保时间长一些。

这里反而说了照射的好处了。和however不一致。

ABD显然都是无关的选项。

C不符合文章的行文思路

看看E：说对于又要煮又要照射的食物来说，其VB1的下降呢，是两者效应的混合【或者说是叠加】。也就是说，有些食物是不能生吃的，煮是必须的，这样的话，不可避免的要在煮这一环损失很多的营养，然后再照射一下，又损失了N多营养，这样照射就显的又不好了。和However比较贴切。

however反对的是支持者，因此however后面的观点应该是说照射的不是才对。

好解释