ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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. 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 _______.

正确答案: E

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2246|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

og12-99题

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2012-8-31 01:59:29 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
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
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

此题感觉题目也看懂了“说放射可以杀菌但是也降低了营养,如维生素b1.支持者就说放射不比烹饪杀的B1多。
然而(转折了),这个要么是跑偏了,因为有的放射食物可以生吃,就是会有误导,XXXX.
为什么要选E呢。。我感觉题目中一点没说放射和烹饪组合的事情啊。为什么这个空要填两种方式一起去除更多B1。。感觉和题目有什么关系。。。完全无法联系起来。。求大神解释(为什么要提2个方式一起呢。。。)
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2012-9-1 10:42:03 | 只看该作者
我是这么理解的。。

either beside the point,如何跑偏?就是本来不需要cook的food,现在却用irradiation处理和cook处理来比较,这就是since后面的意思。
or else misleading,如何误导?脚着就应该和either后面的思考方式相联系,就是本来需要cook的food,即便现在再来一道irradiation处理,也不会干掉超过本来纯粹cook处理干掉的B1数量(因为irradiation处理干掉的B1不会比cook处理干掉的多)。但是since这两种处理相结合的话实际上干掉的B1数量是可以求和的(也即compounded表达的意思)。
呃希望说清楚了。。
板凳
发表于 2012-9-2 03:49:13 | 只看该作者
原文反对的是如下的proponents的观点:
放射不会比烹饪损害更多的VB1,其实它还隐含了一个假设:对于那些要煮的食物,放不放射没关系啦,都不会比烹饪损害的VB1更多。而对于那些不需要煮的食物,proponents们没有论据支持。

原文反驳(显然更全面更有条理):
1.许多用于放射处理的食物可以吃生的,不用煮,不放射就不会有VB1流失;
2.即使要吃熟的部分,需要烹饪的,本来我只由烹饪损失一次,现在再放射一次,两次对VB1的损害是compounded的,程度比只烹饪肯定更大。

所以,所以你知道了,是烹饪和放射损害VB1的程度相比较。如果不放射,either...or...的两种情况都能减少对VB1的流失。
地板
发表于 2012-11-23 15:02:58 | 只看该作者
谢谢楼上!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-20 07:17
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部