GWD-5-30新看法

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

该题经过了很长时间谈论，我虽然仍选C，但有新的理由说服我选C。

1。为何说beside the point: 因为对于 irradiated food that is eaten raw。不涉及到cooking的问题，所以拿rradiation 和cooking比较是无关的

2。为何说misleading：对于不是eaten raw的食物，支持者的话让人误解为irradiation是好的，比cooking好。但因为cooking对 irradiated food that is NOT eaten raw是必须的，而irradiation只是保鲜，不是必需的，可有可无。这在情况下，本来可以不用irradiation去保鲜，但proponents提的事实却让人误解为要irradiation，因为它不必cooking差。

3。从行文结构上讲，作者反驳支持者是采用将食物分两类：对于不需要cooking的食物，支持者的证据无关；对于需要cooking的食物，因为cooking是必需的，你没得选，而irradiation不是必需的，所以支持者的话让人产生了误解，说你必须选irradiation，因为它比cooking好。

4。对于E，无法让人误解什麽。

我觉得是E。

我的理解是：however之后的内容是要反驳proponent的。proponent说irridiation在破坏B1方面和cooking 相同，所以支持irridiation，但however后反驳说

1。因为生吃，（不cooking，所以营养价值是被irridiation破坏了）

2。对既irridiation又cooking 的食物，因为两者对B1的单独破坏会compound，即比两个过程单独的破坏都要大，也就是说irridiation加剧了cooking时破坏B1的作用

the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

由以上两点得出irridiation不好，正好从所有情况反驳了proponent。

我的语法不好，无法从either。。。or 方面解释，只能从自己对题目含义的理解来解释

请各位NN指正。

看了大家的讨论，个人认为E更合理。

同意wwwhahchn，C自行添加了条件，且是题目未提及的无关的内容，如什么final step, longer shelf life for perishable foods。

E更切题，更合理地解释了misleading的原因以及either...or所指的两种情况

支持C，关于either, or else是可以看成是either的补集，比如所有的可能性是一个集合的话，either是其中的一个子集，or else则是either的补集，这个 没有问题，但在这里丝毫不影响选择答案。E对答案毫无意义。充其量只能说明这两个过程都会损失食物的Vb1，至于哪一个损失的更多，没办法弄清楚，如果说irradiation造成的损失更多，到可以看成是反对了前面的支持者。

I chose C based on some of my own thoughts below. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks.

I think the two parts connected by “either…or…” are close related, and therefore can be put together(integrated) to strengthen the author’s point. For example, we can say:

… However, this fact is both beside the point and misleading, since irradiated food is eaten raw, and irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods while cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption.

How do you think about this line of thinking?

Maybe it’s a bit awkward and not so convincing. Let me try again.

Using C, we can switch the two parties following “either” and “or” without changing the meaning and the flow of the argument—

            … However, this fact is either misleading, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else beside the point, since “cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods”.

Using E in the place of C in above sentences, on the other hand, would seem to be either intrusive (   coming out of  nowhere) or too far-reaching.

我刚刚请教了一位大牛(780，北美)，人家说是E。也说C并没有怎么misleading。

(这位大牛的credential很高，一考780，只看了XDF笔考题和LZM语法，外加Kaplan模4考，一个月搞定。

考前已经快拿名校经济学博士了，考着玩的吧。看来要想游刃有余，英文实力是根本。)

可能有时我把题想得太复杂了。Ai...

答案应该E，因为文章的意思是COOKING和r对B1的损失的比较，E是说既然两个作用是conpound，所以无法比较哪个大，那个小，或者是否相似。

I prefer to E since B introduces an irrelevant factor "a longer shelf life for perishable foods ". Meanwhile, the "or else misleading" means that even we suppose the irretated foods to be cooked, "the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded"

偶也同意是c

理由： 第一个说besides the point since........

第二个说misleading(误导)，那应该是把cooking and irridiation两个概念给混淆了。所以应该解释两个不同的概念。 c 正好说了cooking 是什么。irridiation是什么.而e, 我觉得只是解释了一种事实。与误导不误导应该没什么关系。