gwd 逻辑

dpzixuan89

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
   
   自己知道应该选E，但不知道为什么选E
   

aomeisoft7

for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
B1损失量=irradiated损失的B1+cooked损失的B1

支持irradiate者的看法：irradiate是损失B1，可是cooking也损失B1啊，cooking也好不到哪去吧？
题目要求反对irradiate，上述等式说明，用了irradiate，B1会损失的更多，所以不能忽略它的影响

frankzhiwei

irradiation的效果=cook，那么，不是全部都是生吃的呀，还得cook，那不就double destroy 营养了。
这题就想OG那题电视广告cable TV说，“free TV”并不是free，而其实是要客户帮忙给了广告的费用，可是如果cable TV也有广告的话，那岂不就还得给个double！