请教 GWD7-30

lguo1

    

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.  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  
   

The given answer is E.

But E doesn't seem to be relevant at all.  I think A is the best choice.  Since A provides a valid reason why those proponents of irradiation want to mislead other people to believe that irradiation is no worse than cooking.

Could anyone please explain on this one?

Thanks!

    

    

lguo1

I'm sorry that I just noticed that I posted to wrong place.