|
Q30:
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.   roponents 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 _______.
- many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
- it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
- cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
- certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
- for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
E和C,大家怎么看
这么理解提干,irradication破坏B1, irradication的opponent说在破坏B1方面irradication和coocking一样不好, 后面整句其实是weaken前面这种说法,题目给了一个weaken的条件(beside the point)since much irradiated food is eaten raw,划线就是让我们再添一个( misleading)条件
我们只需要在选项里找一个反驳在破坏B1方面irradication和cooking一样不好
E: 说在破坏B1方面irradication和cooking是compound的作用,就是累加的意思吧,也就是说cooking会破坏B1,但irradication和cooking一起破坏更多
C:是讲irradication(用来延长保存期)和cooking的作用(用来吃),和破坏营养没关系。
|