请教各路高人一道OG12里CR部分99题。。。

Crystaljoy

manhattan牛~

cheesecake00

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！！！

-- by 会员 米样 (2011/6/19 17:32:37)

豁然开朗啊！！！！
特别是最后的diet和exercise的例子也举得太到位了！

赤尾屿

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)

我觉得这个解释的特别好，恍然大悟。突然想起一个相应的例子。
就像高三的时候，妈妈总说，女儿，不要躺着看手机，会对眼睛不好。
我会说，哎呀，反正晚上熬夜看书，都会伤害眼睛。
妈妈就反驳说，那你这样（又躺着看手机，又晚上熬夜看书），不是伤害更大。

就是说，熬夜看书对眼睛伤害大不能否认躺着看手机对眼睛的伤害。一样的，cooking和IR本来就不相互独立，先IR，后cooking，也不能否认IR对维生素的破坏。所以E了~~~

风静静

大家的解释，让我茅塞顿开~~谢谢啦~~

cici_head2A

TT做题的时候完全没有理解到cook前也要ir、、、

emolee

taoxinshigou 发表于 2010-11-28 23:23
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 ...

我同意你的看法。

700comeon

6666

拼图跑步旅游

wangsiwei 发表于 2010-7-22 00:05
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 ...

同意！               

doris0021

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since

作者在这里的意思是：irradiated food多数是生吃的，既然是生吃就不需要cook，既然都不需要cook了，那是否比cook好，与irradiated food好不好之间有什么关系？所以proponents提出的：irradiation 与cooking损失的一样多 => irradiation好 这个推理过程就beside the point。

而答案是对于那些需要cook的irradiated food，那么proponent的比较的确有意义，但是proponent的推理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。答案的反驳就是irradiation和cooking是可以叠加的。

mark一下！

daisy123123

cherryruj 发表于 2010-7-27 15:52
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 ...

好解释！