一道逻辑题..

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 _______.

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

答案是E

我的感觉阿， 可以迅速排除ABC

D 体会不出来原来的misleading在哪里, it simply presents two scenarios, the combination of which results something that supports proponents' argument.

E compounded 是累积的意思吧，  total reduction of vitamin B1 = the reduction associated with cooking + the reduction associated with irradiation

cooking will not effect the amount of reduction associated with irradiation in any ways. -> the misleading could be: cooking 放大/加剧了 irradiation 的负面影响 

compounded是使。。严重的意思

这个是问支持irradiation is worse in this respect than cooking

ABC无关 D是反对

剩下就E了。。不太明显我觉得。。

非N解。。

However, this fact is either beside the point,

this fact 指的是irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking

有了however转折，应该是支持下面either的观点．

下面的观点是对irradiated food在吃法上的一些误解的原因