[求助]OG12 99再问

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

我想问的是 文中讨论的是irradiation和cooking，E中的both不应该是无关的嘛?如果不是无关,怎么misleading的呀?

另外: og说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.为什么是false的呢?

作者反对proponents的观点(他们认为cooking 没比irradiation好哪去, 也一样杀VB)

作者说:支持者的观点不是离题的(因为很多radiated food 要生吃)就是误导的(因为如果不生吃做熟了吃,那对VB的破坏力就复合在一起,害处更大)

刚看了一个老帖的解释，自己已经想明白为什么这道题要选E了。记录一下自己的思路，抛砖引玉。

原题简化：irradiation会破坏食物的营养成分，但支持irradiation的人认为cooking也会破坏，所以两者差不多。此题的目的是要反驳这些支持者的观点，即irradiation没什么不好。

如何反驳？1）有些食物本来就是生吃，所以在同样不用cook的情况下，那么没有经过irradiation（就没有营养流失），直接生吃食物必然更好。所以irradiation不好。

2）有些食物就得cook，那么在同样需要cook的情况下，irrationan会破坏，cook也会破坏，那么没有经过irradiation，直接被cook营养流必然更少。（前提：二者加起来的破坏程度不能小于等于其中任何一种，由此就可以排除D选项）这个再一次说明irradiation不好。所以E选项说：如果这两个过程中营养破坏的程度是累积的，即，两者加起来的破坏程度大于其中任何一种（和D刚好相反）。那么经过了irradiation的食物再被cook当然更加不好了。

up下~~~~