gwd-11-12

Q12:

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

没有标准答案，我选C,有人选E,可我搞不懂，谁来帮帮我？

支持E.

我是用最土的方法判断的. 就是从我们日常的逻辑入手:

1. 要么无关: 因为很多通过辐射的食物是生吃的. (没煮啥事!)

2. 要么误倒: 所谓误倒就是让大家放心大胆的去用辐射, 为什么说让大家放心大胆的去用辐射是误倒呢, 因为其实如果又煮有辐射的话, 破坏效果会加倍. (虽然不比煮坏, 大家也别使劲辐射啊!)

C选项, 其实跟前面的无关理由差不多, 是说明辐射和煮是两码事的. (煮是为了吃, 辐射是为了保存, 河水不犯井水)

坚定不移地选E. 今天终于想明白了.

支持E。

Irradiation支持者的论点是：Irradiation对食品营养无extra的破坏作用。文章作者是要反驳这个论点。而Irradiation支持者的论据是以下FACT：irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. 这里this respect是指destroy VB1这件事情。文章的结尾，"However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______."，是为了指出Irradiation支持者企图用那个FACT支持他们论点的逻辑缺陷。

排列组合一下文章提到食品处理的四种可能，然后比较各种情形下destroy VB1的程度：

1。No Irradiation ＋ No Cooking (=eaten raw)  => beside the point

2。Irradiation ＋ Cooking

3。Irradiation only

4。Cooking only

作者承认3和4在destroy VB1上没多少差别（FACT），所以剩下1和2两项，用二分法（either...or else）逐条驳斥：

（I）说1这种情形下，the FACT is beside the point，因为如果食品生吃，the FACT与irradiation支持者的论点无关，也就是说此情形下Cooking和Irradiation破坏VB1相同的事实并不能支持他们的论点；

（II）而2这种情形下，the FACT is misleading，因为Irradiation 和 Cooking 的破坏VB1的作用是幂数增加的（即（1-x%)^n，类似于利息），而FACT则仅是Cooking only和Irradiation only的比较。Irradiation支持者举出FACT来支持他们的论点时，忽略选项E这个事实，所以misleading。

不同意C，因为it's off the topic of “this repect”: destroy VB1。

附: Longman，关于or else的解释:

or else:

b) used to say what another possibility might be

I choose C, which points out that comparing irradiation and cooking is misleading.

I do not pick A because it does not make the argument misleading. Even if the proponents are gaining from irradiation, their argument can still hold, as long as it is valid. Just like I am selling BMW and I claim that BMW is better than Audi in quality. Even though I could profit from my argument, if my point is valid, it is not misleading.

I do not pick E because I do not see how E makes the conclusion misleading. If the conclusion is that cooking irradiated food will only lose double the amount of VB1, E is right. The conclusion here is that irradiation is no worse than cooking. E could not counter either the argument or the conclusion.

I do not have the final answer. Personal opinion open to argument.

The author of the passage contends that “(irradiation) lowers the nutritional value”.  roponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect [the respect of lowering the nutritional value] than cooking.  In arguing for their position, the proponents cite one fact (irradiation is no worse than cooking – when compared separately), and “conveniently” omits another fact (irradiation and cooking used together cause double nutritional loss).  So, the mentioning of only the first fact is misleading.

C points out that irradiation and cooking are at different stage of food processing and serve different purpose, but the difference alone does not weaken much the proponent’s argument, thus, it does not potently point out how the proponents’ argument is misleading.

Open to discussion.

呵呵,偶也选E来着,不解中..

说说我的想法:其实C和E思路基本相同,只差往前走一步

beside the point:需要生吃的时候根本不需radiation---VB1本来就不应损失,所以beside the point

misleading:需要煮熟的时候, 大家会被误导认为radiation损失小,但是实际上VB1损失不能只考虑radiation,还要加上cooking (V loss during radiation<storage of food> + V loss during cooking<preparation of food for consumption>)

同志们，gwd指的是哪个复习资料啊？急盼告之