GWD5-30大牛飘过来啊

1006002952

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 _______.

A.many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s 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 final 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
不明白E是怎么misleading的和fact是个啥关系啊？？？？
Q28: GWD-2-10

Environmentalist:The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson:Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milvillein winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents.So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree:A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances

B.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

C.Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means

D.Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it

E.Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people


这里面的those people是指的谁啊？？？E是啥意思没明白的呢
请大牛指教




Q28: GWD-2-10

Environmentalist:The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson:Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milvillein winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents.So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree:A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances

B.Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

C.Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means

D.Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it

E.Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people


这里面的those people是指的谁啊？？？E是啥意思没明白的呢
请大牛指教

1006002952

明白了，谢谢

sdcar2010

those people = a certain group of people = many out-of-towners

sdcar2010

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 E is right.

Irradiation alone destroys X grams of vitamin B.
Cooking alone destroys Y grams of vitamin B.
When irradiation and cooking are combined, the combined effect would destroy (X + Y) gram of vitamin B, more than the share destroyed by cooking only. In the argument, the assumption is that irradiation ONLY destroys the portion of vitamin B which would be eventually destroyed by cooking.

Misleading!!!