GWD5-30,进来看,会给你新的冲击! 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 _______.
- 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
在选E的朋友中, 一部分认为proponent的意思“你们别看irradiation对营养有破坏作用,其实它对营养的破坏还没cooking大呢!——你们平时做菜不 都要cook的么?所以不管你们用不用irradiation,这些营养最终都会被cooking破坏。因此irradiation并不会给你们带来额外 的营养损失!” 一部分认为proponent的意思“你们别看irradiation对营养有破坏作用,其实它对营养的破坏还没cooking大呢!——你们平时做菜不 都要cook的么?所以不管你们用不用irradiation,这些营养最终都会被cooking破坏。因此irradiation并不会给你们带来额外 的营养损失!”强调一下,隐含了不会有额外损失!于是E说有两倍损失,就是说明原句misle- 另一部分人说No Irradiation + No Cooking (=eaten raw) => beside the point, 1。有的食物可以生吃,不用cook,本来不流失一点点,可是你irra-了,流失了,于是propo-的话无关! 2。有的食物不能生吃,要用cook,本来propo-的意思是irra-就不用cook了,但是这部分食物就不行,于是两倍损失,所以原句误导。 强调一下,raw必须指的是No Irradiation + No Cooking (=eaten raw) , 我个人站在第二种人的观点,选E。但是从E语言中格外强调individual 和 compounded,我又觉得第一种人的观点有可能是出题人本意。
A项是典型的对proponents的"人身攻击",与论证无关. B项阐述killing bacteria 作为irradiation's effect关系,这在文中是以背景给出的,题中也会提到了another effect即 retarding spoilage(属于反对前提),因此不能选. C项主要干了这么一件事:指出cooking与irradiation的不可比性.认为它们之间不具有trade-off的必要,因此irradiation的支持者拿cooking拿替罪羊是misleading的. D项给出的是proponents的总论点的进一步例证,很明显不是支持misleading的理由. E 项阐述的是证实proponents的论点的一种困难,没有对论点本身产生任何实质性关联,虽然both irradiated and cooked与eaten raw形成互补容易迷惑人,但仔细想一想,方在这里的,应该是削弱proponents的论点的,而且要符合misleading,对VB1减少效应 compounded并不能否定irradiation is no worse than cooking,只是说,在这种情况下无法判断是不是worse的,因此不能选.
|