求解答~在线等~og13 cr 101 思路以及最后一句的解释

wwwlomo · 发表于 2012-10-3 23:20:43

110. Although custom prosthetic bone replacements produced through a new computer-aided design process will
cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements, custom replacements should still be cost-effective.
Not only will surgeryand recovery time be reduced, but custom replacements should last longer, thereby
reducing the need for further hospital stays.
Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?
(A) The amount of time a patient spends in surgery versus the amount of time spent recovering from surgery
(B) The amount by which the cost of producing custom replacements has declined with the introduction of the
new technique for producing them
(C) The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when
compared with the use of ordinary replacements
(D) The degree to which custom replacements produced with the new technique are more carefully
manufactured than are ordinary replacements
(E) The amount by which custom replacements produced with the new technique will drop in cost as the
production procedures become standardized and applicable on a larger scale

wwwlomo · 发表于 2012-10-3 23:24:13

贴错了。。。
101. 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 Bl 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
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin Bl than carefully controlled
irradiation is
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process
individually is compounded

vesko · 发表于 2012-10-4 11:22:50

irradiation跟cooking都会破坏VB 效果就算差不多但是compound 就是相当于效果叠加了

嗷嗷待哺的小狼 · 发表于 2012-11-9 08:56:53

同意不太理解，lz懂了没？说下呗

12711399 · 发表于 2012-11-9 09:18:39

how is the correct answer misleading then?

12711399 · 发表于 2012-11-9 12:06:29

B: we should not use irradiation because it kills vitamin B in a vegetable.
A：irradiation is no not worse than cooking, since both processes take out the same amount the Vitamin B from vegetable.
B: this is misleading, because: say a vegetable contains 100 units of Vitamin B, after processed by irradiation it would have only 70 units Vitamin B left, and the irradiation process took 30 units vitamin B from the vegetable; Then we move the vegetable into the cooking process which another 30 vitamin B is took away from the process. thus left the vegetable with only 40 units of vitamin B.
B: it appears that after both cooking and irradiation, the vegetable's number of vitamin B has dropped from 100 to 40, since the effect of the two processes can be added together when combined, it does not matter how little irradiation could damage the vegetable; the damage done by irradiation would be added to the damage caused by cooking. therefore , readers have been misled by A's accusation of irradiation is no worse than cooking in killing vitamin Bs. This problem is non essential, since for food that is both irradiated and cooked, no matter how little damage irradiation could have done to vegetable, that damage is added to whole reduction of the vitaimin B account of the vegetable, thus creating further damage to the vegetable's vitamin B's account.

我试着边自己写边自己分析，但是说真的糊里糊涂的，哪怕写完了还是迷迷糊糊的

亲爱的小葵 · 发表于 2012-11-9 16:07:38

这题我也正在看。。这题是这样理解吗对食物的irradiation能阻挡细菌、延缓食物损坏。但也降低了食物的营养价值比如B1。有人说在这方面照射不比烹饪差。然而这个说法要么对，因为有的是生吃的，或者是错的，因为___.
那这题的论点不就是 irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking，可是E选项说效果compound为什么就能表明这个说法misleading呢

xby861003 · 发表于 2012-11-17 02:25:58

同问。。。这个逻辑简图都画不出来。。。

slgbond · 发表于 2012-11-18 12:09:01

however那段话的结构
但是，事实要么跑题了，要么被误导了
跑题了，是因为有些辐照过的食物是生吃的
误导了，是因为。。？

E选项估计也难理解

对于既烹饪又微波的食物来说，这两种伴随维他命B1减少的过程中任何一个过程，分别都是复合的

zxppx · 发表于 2012-11-18 17:31:41

请看however出现在proponents这句话之后，说明作者需要填补的那句话应该是用来反驳“支持者”的观点的，那么就需要指出irradiation的坏处，E选项：如果两种方式对于食物的营养损害的作用是复合（相加）的，那么说明经过了照射，又经过了烹饪的食物就会丧失更多的营养元素。这样也就说明了irradiation的不好之处！

求解答~在线等~og13 cr 101 思路以及最后一句的解释

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()