请问一道不确定答案的gwd题，两次两个答案～～

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

请问这道题究竟改怎么理解，我做到2次，一次的答案是E，一次是C？

请问此题应该怎么理解呢？？

感觉是C把。Proponents of irradiation 认为和cooking相比,irradiation并不算太坏（在破坏维生素这件事情上），分明是以50步笑百步阿，题目是要求反对PROPONENTS的观点，坚持认为irradiation不好.

beside the point,means much irradiated food is not needed to be cooked, so how can you make the conclusion that IRRADIATION IS BETTER THAN COOKING?

misleading, means COOKING AND IRRADIATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS TO SERVE FOOD.

my personal opinions.

发现竟然在逻辑区也是lykuang顶偶的帖子，谢谢～

不过我觉得第一个since......（说了irridation过的食物很多不用cook了）

那么第二个since后面是否可能跟“irridate过后仍要cook的”东西呢

因为本来cook就会导致营养流失，现在irridation后，两者的负作用会累加，所以说——对于不需要cook的东西，irridation不好；对于需要cook的东西，irridation也不好

不知道我这样去想可以么？（就变成E了～～）