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: 2603|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GMAT-7-30请教求解思路

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-11-11 13:54:00 | 只看该作者

GMAT-7-30请教求解思路



























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.  roponents 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 _______.











many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life





it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has





cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods





certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is





for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
沙发
发表于 2005-11-11 14:28:00 | 只看该作者
C
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2005-11-12 10:59:00 | 只看该作者
能解释一下吗?谢谢
地板
发表于 2005-11-12 14:47:00 | 只看该作者

"1。为何说beside the point: 因为对于 irradiated food that is eaten raw。不涉及到cooking的问题,所以拿rradiation 和cooking比较是无关的


2。为何说misleading:对于不是eaten raw的食物,支持者的话让人误解为irradiation是好的,比cooking好。但因为cooking对 irradiated food that is NOT eaten raw是必须的,而irradiation只是保鲜,不是必需的,可有可无。这在情况下,本来可以不用irradiation去保鲜,但proponents提的事实却让人误解为要irradiation,因为它不必cooking差。


3。从行文结构上讲,作者反驳支持者是采用将食物分两类:对于不需要cooking的食物,支持者的证据无关;对于需要cooking的食物,因为cooking是必需的,你没得选,而irradiation不是必需的,所以支持者的话让人产生了误解,说你必须选irradiation,因为它比cooking好。


4。对于E,无法让人误解什麽。"

5#
发表于 2005-12-17 20:13:00 | 只看该作者

争论太多,难以蔽之, 个人倾向e

6#
发表于 2005-12-18 00:59:00 | 只看该作者

选E,因为烹制食物会更损坏营养

返回列表 发新帖
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:

所属分类: GMAT考试

IESE MBA

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-9 05:29
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