明天要考了，请教一道题，拜谢！

iamam

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 answer is E, I don't understand, could any NN explain it to me, thanks a lot!

swiss0204

这题同GWD11-12.
            

可以在讨论区找到, 是个争议题……..

eddienumb

明天要考了！支持一下!
我是这么理解：关键的两个词beside the point（不相关的）和misleading(使人误解的)
之所以说不相关是因为 我吃生的 你给我举 cooking 的例子 那不就是不相关么
之所以说使人误解是因为他把两个过程（1，irradition     2,cooking ）分开考虑了   仔细看这句话
        Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. 于是让人误解irradiation的危害与cooking相比可以不考虑（但你体会一下    他的前提是 ： 这个菜是一定要炒的 ）
而cooking 和 irradiation同时实施的话 危害会超大  这就是E想说的

不知道说清楚没有    每天好运！！加油！！

iamam

thanks a lot, I have found the explanation. I also choose C.

eddienumb

不好意思阿  误导了.......你还是按照自己的思路想