请教各路高人一道OG12里CR部分99题。。。

米样

转自Manhattan：http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9595&view=previous

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

-- by 会员 花子落落 (2011/1/9 16:53:43)

这个解释真好！！！
嗯，when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.这句话说的好！可以举一反三！！！

redbasalt

食物的吃法只有两种，一种是生吃，此时Ir之后B1会有流失，一种是cooking之后，此时B1会加倍流失，所以选E，呵呵，我是这么理解的，不知是否可以帮忙。

chenlencu

11和16楼的解释让我很明白了，当时上GWD的课，貌似讲了这题，现在又忘了

vkoa

转自Manhattan：http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9595&view=previous

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

-- by 会员 花子落落 (2011/1/9 16:53:43)

本质啊

bob9603

转自Manhattan：http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9595&view=previous

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

-- by 会员 花子落落 (2011/1/9 16:53:43)

本质啊

-- by 会员 vkoa (2011/6/28 16:47:33)

问个问题哈，E我能看懂，但是最后的那个is compounded不太懂~
             E的意思我理解的：或者是误导了，因为食物是要经过放射和做饭的，B1的减少和这两个都有关~
             然后就不知道is compounded怎么翻译了~
        帮帮我吧，谢谢NN啦~~O(∩_∩)O

bob9603

我同意9楼的说法，老外很喜欢irradiation一下事物，为了可以延长保质期，那么针对题中说在流失B1方面，i和c都会有此弊端，然后proponent为了要支持i的好处，就说其实c也会流失B1，后面接着说这个事实是离题的，因为支持者说这句话是为了证明i和c的危害一样，可是argument讨论的是i的好处和坏处，所以题目最后一句说proponent的这句话是beside the point，point不是比较谁更坏，而是看irradiation到底有没有坏处；而misleading是因为，proponent故意降低了i的危害程度，因为compond的效果更坏，所以不能单纯从i和c的比较中看出irradiation的危害是不大的。
这样看呢？

-- by 会员 sophia0518CD (2010/7/25 22:47:25)

赞同您的观点，但我有个问题哈，E我能看懂，但是最后的那个is compounded不太懂~
             E的意思我理解的：或者是误导了，因为食物是要经过放射和做饭的，B1的减少和这两个都有关~
             然后就不知道is compounded怎么翻译了~
        帮帮我吧，谢谢NN啦~~O(∩_∩)O

q1weruqt

转自Manhattan：http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9595&view=previous

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

-- by 会员 花子落落 (2011/1/9 16:53:43)

本质啊

-- by 会员 vkoa (2011/6/28 16:47:33)

问个问题哈，E我能看懂，但是最后的那个is compounded不太懂~
             E的意思我理解的：或者是误导了，因为食物是要经过放射和做饭的，B1的减少和这两个都有关~
             然后就不知道is compounded怎么翻译了~
        帮帮我吧，谢谢NN啦~~O(∩_∩)O

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2011/7/25 21:20:40)

b1的减少（与两个单独的过程（就是放射和烹饪）都有关）被加倍了。

hetty1800

[quote]

我觉得吧，其实那些支持者误导人是让人觉的反正cooking也要丢失B1，怎么样都是吃不到嘴巴里，所以辐射的不好的方面可以忽略了。他有一个非常隐含的假设是辐射和cooking是并列而且排他的，要么因为辐射丢B1，要么因为cooking丢B1。
但实际上不是并列排他的，在时间上应该是有前后而且是联系在一起的，。答案就是指出这个不好的方面实际上是加重了B1的流失。
这个题有点像GMAT经常出的一种题，就是A会产生什么后果，而B产生的后果更好，所以应该用B。但如果weaken的话，就是A和B可以一起作，产生的后果更好。而这个题就是A产生一个不好的后果，但是A产生的后果不比B的更坏，所以A的这个缺点不是个大事。weaken的话，就是A和B一起是不是就更差了。
浅见啊，大家讨论。

-- by 会员 wangsiwei (2010/7/22 0:05:34)

很好的类比！！顿悟啊！！！

jianghxsir

我的理解是这样的，我们在cooking的时候，不是也会有生的食物（比如，胡萝卜、生菜等）吗？那么，如果这些东西被irradiate了，并被我们吃了而导致B1吸收量下降。这种情况是可以算在cooking里面的。还有会让人误解的是，如果我的食物是irradiated and cooked,这样引起的B1吸收量下降，也可以认为是irradiated食物导致的。

AC007

我觉得是这样的~HOWEVER 后要对proponents的观点进行虚弱.  proponents 的观点是反正irradiation后都要经过cooking而且cooking的伤害可能会更大些因此总的伤害=cooking的伤害，原文对其观点削弱：1，有些东西是用来生吃的本来不用cooking. 2.先irradiation 再cooking对B1的伤害是不确定的不能简单的认为就是cooking的伤害

-- by 会员 taoxinshigou (2010/11/28 23:23:12)