请NN指教gwd5-30，看了讨论贴仍没明白。。

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

   ansE

I was also wrong, as I did not understand the word "misleading" thoroughly, but after studied it, now I know.

the point from the author is below according to my analysis:

1 However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw. 

"Since irradiated food is eaten", talking about cooking is rather not to the point/not to the center of the discussion.

2  Since author has pointed out at the first step of "beside the point" that much irradiated food is eaten raw, then if proponent talking about "food that is both irradiated and cooked", it is rather directing people who knows little about irradiated food to the wrong direction, as it's out of the scope too far. What author essentially meant is that one should now tell people to cook irradiated food at all.

Therefore, to point out a misleading position, the answer should be E.

2 typing mistakes,

line 4 Since irradiated food is eaten raw. forget "raw"

line 7 one should now tell people to cook... it's not now, it's not.
    

关键是  "misleading" 

前面作者说:

1 However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw.  这里讲既然是要生吃的, 那么说cooking着个问题就不着边际了，偏题了,所以用了beside the point,

2  既然刚才说 irradiated food要生吃, 那么如果proponent 提议说到"food that is both irradiated and cooked", 就根本不可能发生的呀，　是误导了, 我们中国人就会说"这个人自己根本不懂, 怎么瞎扯!"　

 E.

所以，　选择Ｅ的话，　就可以表示一种误导的说法了呀，　就满足了misleading的要求了．　

为什么所有的人都觉得不是C就是E呢？

我认为选A。

因为misleading可以是一种主观态度。如果irradiation的支持者，可以从中获益，不是一种misleading吗？

I think E makes better sense if we look at the argument more closely.

"However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______. "

From my understanding: Since proponents point out : "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." Here, proponents are comparing irradiation with cooking, which is beside the point, because much irradiated food is eaten raw. (so there is no point to compare), while food is rarely being both irradiated and cooked. However, when under the condition of food is being cooked and irradiated, we have no way to differentiate the reduction of Vb1 caused by either of the process individually. because "the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded"
            

here compounded means "mixed up"

btw, choice E makes the argument grammatically logical too.

=P

我认为，逻辑题的关键是对症下药。首先分析材料：

第四句话：支持者认为irradation 和 cooking的作用是一样的，所以意味着支持者认为irradation并没有什么负面影响

最后一句话最关键：

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw,

 or else misleading, since _______. 要说明的是支持者的观点是错误的

就要找哪个可以驳斥第四句话的观点：即：即使irradation 和 cooking的作用是一样的，也不能说明irradation并没有什么负面影响，选项e正好解决了这个问题，指出irradation会在cooking已经减少b1的情况下继续进一步的减少bi。