请教各路高人一道OG12里CR部分99题。。。

Tra

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

这个答案的解释我觉得看到我很苦恼（esp. boldface part!!）。。。请问有人可以解释一下下么？谢谢啦~

Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents’ claim to be

misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating

that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent seems to be

suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated because it

will end up with the same amount of B1 either way. But if the eff ects of radiation and

cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the

proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.

吐露浦

我完全可以理解正确选项E，但是B呢？
B：杀可能存在于食物的细菌并非irradiation唯一的effect
也就说，irradiation可能还有其他的坏处，那么把他和cooking做alternative比较就不合理。
is there anybody who could tell me what is wrong with my understanding ?
感恩的心

卖报的小行家

这样理解： 背景：可能辐照在食品行业中变得越来越普遍，因为被辐照过的例如苹果之类的，不容易腐败，然后商人们就不会因为在运输过程中食物腐败而蒙受损失。
文段在辩论说辐照会导致营养营养流失，然而辐照的支持者和你说：“辐照导致的营养流失没有烹煮这个过程的高”，就好像在告诉你辐照没什么大不了的。然而为了不让食物营养过度流失，我们要么就只能生吃，要么再把辐照过的食物煮着吃，那这样不就更加加剧了营养的流失了吗，第一步工序就流失10%，第二步工序再流失百分之10%，那我还不如去选择那些没有辐照过的食物呢，这样营养流失得少。

627031125

前面的戴眼镜看熟的例子说的非常好，
原文说irradiation不好，proponents说，cook还不好呢
proponents提出了cook并不能证明irradiation不损害营养。
首先，如果吃raw的，那就和cook没啥关系，这不是跑题了吗
另外，如果吃cook的，那么效果是叠加的compounded的，情况更糟。proponents通过说cook还不好，弄得貌似irradiation挺好的一样，结果对于cook的又用了irradiation，情况更糟糕。
这就属于误导人。

E补充了raw的另外一种情况，即cooked，对应于either or，正确

daisy123123

cherryruj 发表于 2010-7-27 15:52
我觉得吧，其实那些支持者误导人是让人觉的反正cooking也要丢失B1，怎么样都是吃不到嘴巴里，所以辐射的 ...

好解释！

doris0021

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

作者在这里的意思是：irradiated food多数是生吃的，既然是生吃就不需要cook，既然都不需要cook了，那是否比cook好，与irradiated food好不好之间有什么关系？所以proponents提出的：irradiation 与cooking损失的一样多 => irradiation好 这个推理过程就beside the point。

而答案是对于那些需要cook的irradiated food，那么proponent的比较的确有意义，但是proponent的推理有一个非常隐含的假设是辐射和cooking是并列而且排他的，要么因为辐射丢B1，要么因为cooking丢B1。答案的反驳就是irradiation和cooking是可以叠加的。

mark一下！

拼图跑步旅游

wangsiwei 发表于 2010-7-22 00:05
我觉得吧，其实那些支持者误导人是让人觉的反正cooking也要丢失B1，怎么样都是吃不到嘴巴里，所以辐射的不 ...

同意！               

700comeon

6666

emolee

taoxinshigou 发表于 2010-11-28 23:23
我觉得是这样的~HOWEVER 后要对proponents的观点进行虚弱.  proponents 的观点是反正irradiation后都 ...

我同意你的看法。

cici_head2A

TT做题的时候完全没有理解到cook前也要ir、、、