97. Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provide level of output is held constant. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
答案选B. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
我能够理解对第二句的解释，即the second identifies the content of that conclusion. 但第一句就是描述了一个事件，怎么provides support for the conclusion of the argument了？
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 values 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________.
答案选E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
俺就是搞不明白这里面的逻辑关系，尤其是最后这句However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading since________，以及尤其最后这一部分or else misleading since________.
首先，作者的观点是不支持IR的； 其次，支持IR人说irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking。可不可以理解为：IR和cooking的结果差不多，反正也是要cooking的，IR一下无所谓啦~~ 再次，作者对上述观点进行反驳：一呢，并不是所有事物都要cooking的，有的要生吃，所以IR就有所谓了；二呢，IR+cooking，二者混合后的结果就更惨了（因为二者都会减少B1是毋庸置疑的），综上呢，支持IR是没有理由的~~
首先，作者的观点是不支持IR的； 其次，支持IR人说irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking。可不可以理解为：IR和cooking的结果差不多，反正也是要cooking的，IR一下无所谓啦~~ 再次，作者对上述观点进行反驳：一呢，并不是所有事物都要cooking的，有的要生吃，所以IR就有所谓了；二呢，IR+cooking，二者混合后的结果就更惨了（因为二者都会减少B1是毋庸置疑的），综上呢，支持IR是没有理由的~~
首先，作者的观点是不支持IR的； 其次，支持IR人说irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking。可不可以理解为：IR和cooking的结果差不多，反正也是要cooking的，IR一下无所谓啦~~ 再次，作者对上述观点进行反驳：一呢，并不是所有事物都要cooking的，有的要生吃，所以IR就有所谓了；二呢，IR+cooking，二者混合后的结果就更惨了（因为二者都会减少B1是毋庸置疑的），综上呢，支持IR是没有理由的~~
In fact, what 719870465 explained is beside the point since it did not explain the COMPOUNDING effect, which is missed by the proponent of irradiation. The question has nothing to do with EXCHANGING or COMPARING the way to cook the food.
99 There are two voices here. One is the proponents of irradiation. The other is the author. The author says "However, this fact (that irradiation is no worse than cooking in terms of destroying vitamin B1) is either beside the point or else misleading."
It is misleading because if you want to cook the food in the end, irradiating the food before cooking would destroy more vitamin B1 than not irradiating the food, especially when B is right.
In fact, what 719870465 explained is beside the point since it did not explain the COMPOUNDING effect, which is missed by the proponent of irradiation. The question has nothing to do with EXCHANGING or COMPARING the way to cook the food.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-1-31 11:30:38
收藏
收藏
