争议题[GWD－5－30]之我见

幸运的是,我当时做的时候对这个题目思路还是比较清晰的,看到班上讨论的这么激烈,也看了牛牛们的观点后,我想把自己的想法和理解写在这里,希望更多不懂的人能明白

GWD－5－30

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 foods 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 (C)
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

A项是典型的对proponents的"人身攻击",与论证无关.

B项阐述killing bacteria 作为irradiation's effect关系,这在文中是以背景给出的,题中也会提到了another effect即  retarding spoilage(属于反对前提),因此不能选.

C项主要干了这么一件事:指出cooking与irradiation的不可比性.认为它们之间不具有trade-off的必要,因此irradiation的支持者拿cooking拿替罪羊是misleading的.

D项给出的是proponents的总论点的进一步例证,很明显不是支持misleading的理由.

E项阐述的是证实proponents的论点的一种困难,没有对论点本身产生任何实质性关联,虽然both irradiated and cooked与eaten raw形成互补容易迷惑人,但仔细想一想,方在这里的,应该是削弱proponents的论点的,而且要符合misleading,对VB1减少效应compounded并不能否定irradiation is no worse than cooking,只是说,在这种情况下无法判断是不是worse的,因此不能选.