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 _______.
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
"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。