GWD5-30，进来看，会给你新的冲击！

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 _______.

1. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
2. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
3. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
4. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
5. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

在选E的朋友中，

        一部分认为proponent的意思“你们别看irradiation对营养有破坏作用，其实它对营养的破坏还没cooking大呢！——你们平时做菜不都要cook的么？所以不管你们用不用irradiation，这些营养最终都会被cooking破坏。因此irradiation并不会给你们带来额外的营养损失！”

强调一下，隐含了不会有额外损失！于是E说有两倍损失，就是说明原句misle-

       另一部分人说No Irradiation ＋ No Cooking (=eaten raw)  => beside the point，

1。有的食物可以生吃，不用cook，本来不流失一点点，可是你irra-了，流失了，于是propo-的话无关！

2。有的食物不能生吃，要用cook，本来propo-的意思是irra-就不用cook了，但是这部分食物就不行，于是两倍损失，所以原句误导。

强调一下，raw必须指的是No Irradiation ＋ No Cooking (=eaten raw) ，

我个人站在第二种人的观点，选E。但是从E语言中格外强调individual 和 compounded，我又觉得第一种人的观点有可能是出题人本意。

大家来讨论，我的QQ184161344，逻辑思维好，希望和大家共同讨论，共同进步！

试着分析一下，请NN指正：

该题主要讲Pros为irradiation辩解的两种错误，

Pros的辩解：是irradiation在降低营养成分方面并不比cooking大。

文章之处其逻辑的两种错误：

1：Pros的辩解根本答到点子上，因为很多食物不用cooking，所以pros的辩解没有用。

2：误导大家，即使要cooking，难道在cooking之前加的那一道工序irradiation就没有危害食物了吗，其实不然，irradiation＋cooking双重破坏食物营养。

我现在只能理解到这个地步啦，呵呵，等待多个Lawyer一样的NN出现

wo111

分析的挺对

顶