OG12-99怪怪的，感觉那两个since应该有什么关系的样子...

99. 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 signifi cant 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 fi nal 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

这道题我选的是c，感觉无论是c还是e都怪怪的呢。另外，总感觉那两个since应该有什么关系的样子...

大家能不能说一下自己做这道题时的思路呢，越详细越好啦~

呵呵，谢谢大家了~

以下是这道题OG12给的解释

Argument Construction

Situation Irradiation kills bacteria but it also lowers the amount of nutrients—including vitamin

B1—in foods. Proponents try to dismiss this concern by arguing that cooking destroys

B1 as well. Th at point is said to be misleading.

Reasoning Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents’ claim to be

misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating

that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent seems to be

suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated because it

will end up with the same amount of B1 either way. But if the eff ects of radiation and

cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the

proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.

A Th is might make the assurances of the proponents less credible but it does not make their claim

misleading.

B Nothing about the proponents’ claim suggests that the only eff ect irradiation has is to kill

bacteria.

C Th e fact that cooking and irradiation have diff erent purposes does not indicate that the

proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.

D If anything, this strengthens the proponents’ point by minimizing the relative damage caused by

irradiation.

E Correct. This option most logically completes the argument.

Th e correct answer is E.

个人观点，仅供参考

1.since
however, either 点1,since +原因1（解释点1），or 点2, since原因2（解释原因2）

2.选项
C: shelf life 没有在题干提过、再者（ retards spoilage）并不就是指货架上的时间。
cooking是消费掉的手段，irradiation是增加货架life。 这个陈述没有针对文中的矛盾点给出任何解释。矛盾点是irradiation会破会营养价值，cooking也会。
E：either说了很多irradiation破坏营养的东西本来是生吃的，不需要cooking，很好解释了观点。
OR后面，如果跟E，恰恰说明了irradiation和cooking结合，会更加破坏营养，也是针对矛盾点给出的。

我明白了，either or连接的两个原因都是在反对irradiation

也就是支持irradiation不好，是从相斥的两种情况入手的

第一个是说如果irradiation 是加工食物的最后一个步骤，第二个是说，如果irradiation不是最后一个步骤

对吧？

either or是对fact的2个评价。从2个角度对fact批判。

明白了，谢谢啊