ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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 _______.

正确答案: E

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2670|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD 5-30我确信我的判断

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-4-11 15:22:00 | 只看该作者

GWD 5-30我确信我的判断

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

之前一直在C和E之间迷惑。模考的时候我选的C,到不是在C和E之间选择,而是比较自以为是看到C以后就confirm了。后来在CD上查看了以前的讨论,大家有的支持C,有的支持E。

选C的理由是因为Proponents说irratation is no worse than cooking, 因此,如果要说明propoents misleading,那么就要反过来说irradiation is worse than cooking. 而E强调二者都guity,而且和在一起更糟糕,并未比较irratation和cooking那个更糟糕,因此E被排除。

但反复阅读以后,我发现有必要关注句中很关键的一句话“However, this fact is either beside the point...."。注意这里作者已经指出”irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking“ 是一个FACT。只不过这个fact要么和这个论题毫无关系(beside the point),要么是misleading的。这样看来,作者在后面就无需去论缪“irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking”,因此这已经是作者认定的一个事实。作者只需去说明proponents给出的这一事实是一种干扰,造成假象让人以为irradiation并无额外的坏处(irraiation对食品有坏处,这才是作者的论点, proponents把cooking拉进来做比较正是一种干扰)。

因此作者是如此说明的,cooking确实对食物有坏处,irradiation也对食物有坏处,虽然没有cooking的大,但是这两种效应是叠加的(如果不是叠加的,那么irradiation有没有坏处就不重要了),irradiation是有额外的坏处的。

因此,选择E应该是没有什么争议的。

沙发
发表于 2007-4-11 16:44:00 | 只看该作者

。。。。

本来就是选E么。。。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-27 13:36
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部