GWD－5－30，讨论过，但最近有定论了

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 _______.

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

由either sth1 or sth2，可看出sth1、sth2是同属性之物，也就是　可以将sth2也视作离题，即如C指出　irradiation 和cooking是两个不同的过程>>>>两者不具可比较性,当然是misleading“骗人的，使人误解的”

这本是我想破脑袋给说服自己的理由，但最近mindfree大哥大，有不同意见，使自己彻晕了，诚心请教啊！

Stick to C without illuminating explanation.

E答案最难接受的一点是：我查了几本字典，FACT的本质意思为TRUE，没有这点，谈不上FACT。原文作者已将IRRADIATION减少维生素B1的程度比COOKING小称作FACT（this fact is either beside the point....），就是作者认同了这个事实，说这是真的。所以作者要攻击支持者（proponents），只能说支持者讲的这个事实不能支持他的观点，不能再说人家胡说八道了，只能像原文说的文不对题（beside the point）或者误导（misleading）。但E却否定这个FACT，说对于又COOKING又IRRADIATION的食物，哪个减少的维生素B1多说不清。显然E的说法不可能是作者该说的。单纯从这个角度上讲，E就不会是答案。

所以，我的观点还是跟那一大串帖子里39楼我说的观点差不多，选C。

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=56351&star=4&page=1

Thanks tweid for bringing this up again.

I chose C before but now I lean towards E. The reason for choosing E is: either (irrelevant) the irradiated food is eaten raw or (misleading) when both cooked and irradiated, the loss of VB1 is doubled. The two are side by side (either just irradiated or both) and flows well.

Open to discussion.

mindfree兄，好不容易见一次，得多问问你

此题，因果关系是－－因为for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded，所以认为irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking这个结论是“骗人的”

我就在想，那E选项，不如单独列出irradiation的食物VB1损失得更多（比起cooking)，不更能说明irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking骗人啊？（类似于D），何必　模糊地指出　两者对VB1的破坏程度is compouded?

我不是帮ETS出题，只是想弄明白，为什么E中ETS特别提到这类 food that is both irradiated and cooked？

compound的意思不是分不清，而是混合加成，作者想要指出的是，i的支持者们误导消费者去比较i和c的作用，而不是关注如何减少总的作用。c不存在i存在（生吃i过的），i单独作用，c就无关，比较i,c是beside the point。c,i同时存在，i,c的作用混合发生，比较i,c这两个组成部分之间的大小是对判断总量的一种misleading。

如Lawyer所说过的，irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking已经被承认为true了,所以作者并不是说，支持者的这个比较结论是错的，而是说他们摆出这样的比较结论是与我们应该关注的问题无关的（beside the point)或者误导的（misleading是误导的，也可以大白话说他是"骗人的"，但是不是说他是错的，而是说他有引诱别人作出错误判断或行动的intention,所以E如果改成i比c厉害，那么作者也成了跟那些proponents一样的混淆逻辑了）

不好意思啊，楼上的兄弟发的帖子　感觉得到是尽心尽力，感激！

但咱说心里话，更晕了，惨，能不能浅显点，举了例子什么的

例如:　horsefish这个洋化了的irradiation支持者说－－微波炉烤食物好啊，比起液化气灶煮食物，破坏的VB差不多嘛

我作为judger发话了：丫说的话骗人啊，因为对于既煮又烧的食物来说，VB的减少其实是综合作用啊

以上的话应该够贴近题意了吧，有misleading意味么