OG 12-99求逻辑解释，论坛已有贴没有说清楚

99.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 signifi cant 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

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods’ 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 fi nal 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

我的问题是，红体字部分是irradiation支持者的观点，他们的观点是：对于减少B1这件事而言，irradiation和cooking是一样的，也就是说，这两种方式，单独去看，导致的B1损失是相同的。

而作者的反驳基于，两点：

一，大部分irradiation food是生吃；隐含义：所以irradiation和cooking不能比较

二，这样的比较是一种误导，因为“？”

那么如果按照逻辑上来说，应该一个能够否定proponent所提出的这种比较，也就是要达到irradiation worse than cooking的选项。

那么E选项说的是，那些“既irradiation，又cooking” 的食物，比irradiation或者cooking两者任何之一的破坏都要大，那么简单的一个不等式关系就是：irradiation+cooking>irradiation or cooking，这个关系，只能说明irradiation和cooking都有破坏作用，但是不意味着“irradiation<=cooking，即proponent所说的no worse than cooking。”能够被驳斥。

因而，如果要驳斥，应该是能要比较出irradiation>cooking才可以。但E选项，以及官方的解释里，都只是说两者一起的作用，大于任何单独其一。如果要说对，必须是说两者在一起的破坏作用大于两者单独作用之和，才能提供有力的驳斥。但是看所有的解释，并无提到两者单独之和的意思。

求解答

我的意见哦~：  注意 or else 这个词：不然，否则。读出这个很重要。

or else前面说 irradiate的food基本是不会去cook的。 后面用else转折，如果both cook and irradiate,那么减少b的效果就被compound了，这时我们就无法比较到底哪些是由于cook而减少的，哪些是由于irradiate减少的。
这题要我们证明proponent这句话是无根据的，而不是要我们证明这句话是错的。