ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
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: 9308|回复: 21
打印 上一主题 下一主题

求解OG12 CR99

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-8-9 13:48:12 | 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 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 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 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
不太理解这题,题目不是要weaken  (irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking)吗?为什么food that is both irradiated and cooked剩的B1是两者单独加起来的综合就能weaken?这应该是证明cooking也会损坏B1啊?。。。
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-8-9 14:00:44 | 只看该作者
不是要证明irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking。
而是要证明this fact is either beside the point
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-8-10 13:00:52 | 只看该作者
是啊,是要证明this fact (irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking) is either beside the point  ,or else misleading吗?我表达错了。。这个E怎么可以证明呢?题目意思不太懂啊
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2011-8-11 09:27:03 | 只看该作者
up
5#
发表于 2011-8-12 01:24:22 | 只看该作者
同问
6#
发表于 2011-8-22 14:56:54 | 只看该作者
proponents of irradiation 的assumption是,things will be irradiated, OR cooked to end up with the same amount of B1, so irradiation is no worse than cooking. 因此要weaken proponents的观点,可以attack the assumption, 即:things can be irradiated AND cooked来损害更多B1.

一家之言拉。
7#
发表于 2011-9-5 18:22:11 | 只看该作者
来自:Karenzz的解答!!赞今天纠结这道题很久,最后在王可达老师的公共主页上找到这道题的详解,贴上来,方便跟我一样纠结的孩子们参考。
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 _______.
A.      many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s 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 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

先读文章:食物的irradiation(用IR表示)把bacteria杀了,从而怎么着了。但是它也降低了营养价值。比如IR会摧毁很大比例的维生素B1。IR支持者说IR在这方面不比cooking更加糟糕。然而,这种说法没说到点儿上,因为IR的食品很多都是生着吃的,或者是一种误导,因为()

//分析:这是填空题,但是填空的内容,其实是作为原因,所以是支持题的一种变体。文章的结论句在比较IR跟Cooking之间的孰优孰劣,至少选项里得对双方进行评价,因此看选项:

A 好多IR支持者是食物分销商,能够从食物保存时间的延长方面获益。
//分析:从动机上分析原文给出的证据是否可信,太人性了,太不GMAT了。这个属于典型无关,必须立即排除以后快。

B 杀bacteria显然不是IR的唯一效果。
//分析:不是唯一效果,那还有什么效果?好的坏的?这种混吞话很让人蛋疼。

C cooking是食物准备的最后一个步骤,而IR扮演了延长易腐烂食品的保存时间,
//分析:由已知信息里我们看不出“食物准备的步骤”跟“保存时间的延长”两者之间的关系,因此看不出cooking跟IR的这两个特点有什么可比性。最要命的是:食物准备是不是最后一个步骤跟文章说的那些摧毁维生素,杀bacteria或者降低营养价值什么的看不出直接关系。这属于典型的要求背景知识的选项。比B更糟糕。排除。

D 某些cooking的方式对于维生素B的伤害甚至大于精心控制的IR。
//分析:这似乎在说cooking不如IR好,我们原文要支持的是IR不比cooking好,因为是在IR支持者发言的转折后(however)阐述的结论。D选项虽然沾边,但是方向反了。

E 对于需要cooking和IR两个过程共同参与的食品,对于单个过程中产生的维生素B损害是叠加的。
//分析:没什么感觉。但是至少说的似乎都是原文已知信息沾边的事情,唯一的新信息是叠加的问题,这个叠加的信息跟原文的沾边程度再怎么说也比ABC强。所以只能很不情愿的选了E。至于E为什么正确,我不需要知道。

通过这道题,再一次强调,GMAT考察的是我们对信息之间关联性的把握能力,这些信息本身是在说什么我们不需要关注,IR是什么?我不知道,cooking是什么?我也不需要知道。但是两者在原文结论中进行了比较。那么选项中也应该找出可以比较的那一个。D虽然在比较,但是方向反了,C虽然也在比较,但是比的内容似乎跟原文不沾边。权衡之下,只有E最象正确答案。

附录:对于特别想知道E为什么支持了原文的同学,我告诉你:E的信息让我们发现cooking跟IR完全可以同时进行,因此cooking的好坏对于IR的好坏没有影响。cooking不cooking我也要IR。即使cooking比IR更糟糕,也不妨碍IR会让糟糕的程度“锦上添花”。因此是支持原文结论:IR很糟糕。E选项的实质作用是:驳斥了IR支持者拿cooking和IR比较的前提,让比较失去意义。
8#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-9-9 11:08:12 | 只看该作者
啊~虽然我是在这个回复的第二日考完了,所以考前木有看到回复,不过还是3q啊,解答了困扰我很久的疑惑!
9#
发表于 2011-9-22 10:50:14 | 只看该作者
来自:Karenzz的解答!!赞今天纠结这道题很久,最后在王可达老师的公共主页上找到这道题的详解,贴上来,方便跟我一样纠结的孩子们参考。
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 _______.
A.      many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s 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 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

先读文章:食物的irradiation(用IR表示)把bacteria杀了,从而怎么着了。但是它也降低了营养价值。比如IR会摧毁很大比例的维生素B1。IR支持者说IR在这方面不比cooking更加糟糕。然而,这种说法没说到点儿上,因为IR的食品很多都是生着吃的,或者是一种误导,因为()

//分析:这是填空题,但是填空的内容,其实是作为原因,所以是支持题的一种变体。文章的结论句在比较IR跟Cooking之间的孰优孰劣,至少选项里得对双方进行评价,因此看选项:

A 好多IR支持者是食物分销商,能够从食物保存时间的延长方面获益。
//分析:从动机上分析原文给出的证据是否可信,太人性了,太不GMAT了。这个属于典型无关,必须立即排除以后快。

B 杀bacteria显然不是IR的唯一效果。
//分析:不是唯一效果,那还有什么效果?好的坏的?这种混吞话很让人蛋疼。

C cooking是食物准备的最后一个步骤,而IR扮演了延长易腐烂食品的保存时间,
//分析:由已知信息里我们看不出“食物准备的步骤”跟“保存时间的延长”两者之间的关系,因此看不出cooking跟IR的这两个特点有什么可比性。最要命的是:食物准备是不是最后一个步骤跟文章说的那些摧毁维生素,杀bacteria或者降低营养价值什么的看不出直接关系。这属于典型的要求背景知识的选项。比B更糟糕。排除。

D 某些cooking的方式对于维生素B的伤害甚至大于精心控制的IR。
//分析:这似乎在说cooking不如IR好,我们原文要支持的是IR不比cooking好,因为是在IR支持者发言的转折后(however)阐述的结论。D选项虽然沾边,但是方向反了。

E 对于需要cooking和IR两个过程共同参与的食品,对于单个过程中产生的维生素B损害是叠加的。
//分析:没什么感觉。但是至少说的似乎都是原文已知信息沾边的事情,唯一的新信息是叠加的问题,这个叠加的信息跟原文的沾边程度再怎么说也比ABC强。所以只能很不情愿的选了E。至于E为什么正确,我不需要知道。

通过这道题,再一次强调,GMAT考察的是我们对信息之间关联性的把握能力,这些信息本身是在说什么我们不需要关注,IR是什么?我不知道,cooking是什么?我也不需要知道。但是两者在原文结论中进行了比较。那么选项中也应该找出可以比较的那一个。D虽然在比较,但是方向反了,C虽然也在比较,但是比的内容似乎跟原文不沾边。权衡之下,只有E最象正确答案。

附录:对于特别想知道E为什么支持了原文的同学,我告诉你:E的信息让我们发现cooking跟IR完全可以同时进行,因此cooking的好坏对于IR的好坏没有影响。cooking不cooking我也要IR。即使cooking比IR更糟糕,也不妨碍IR会让糟糕的程度“锦上添花”。因此是支持原文结论:IR很糟糕。E选项的实质作用是:驳斥了IR支持者拿cooking和IR比较的前提,让比较失去意义。
-- by 会员 ruanxiaoqian葩 (2011/9/5 18:22:11)



"文章的结论句在比较IR跟Cooking之间的孰优孰劣,至少选项里得对双方进行评价,因此看选项:"
正解啊。
而且一直在V-B1的问题,所以不可能选项里面不包含V-B1(or in other words, nutrients, )的,所以就剩DE啦。
D的方向是反的==
当然E真是有点不着边际--
凑合选E咯~
10#
发表于 2011-10-3 16:34:25 | 只看该作者
这道题让我感受到了排除法的威力
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, 2024-11-10 01:40
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