纠结于两道og12的逻辑题，求讲解。。。

澤澤

99.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
signifi cant 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 .
(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food
distributors who gain from foods’ having a
longer shelf life
(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be
present on food is not the only effect that
irradiation has
(C) cooking is usually the fi nal step in preparing food
for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to
ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more
destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully
controlled irradiation is
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the
reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either
process individually is compounded

澤澤

104.Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central
shopping district are expected to close within fi ve
years as a result of competition from a SpendLess
discount department store that just opened, those
locations will not stay vacant for long. In the fi ve years
since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount
department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that
closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens
the argument?
(A) Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do
less shopping there than they did before the
SpendLess store opened.
(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the
central shopping district since Colson’s opened
have been discount stores.
(C) At present, the central shopping district has as
many stores operating in it as it ever had.
(D) Over the course of the next fi ve years, it is
expected that Goreville’s population will grow at
a faster rate than it has for the past several
decades.
(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell
types of merchandise that are not available at
either SpendLess or Colson’s.

hughlv

OG12的解析不是书上都有的吗？lz具体是看不懂什么？

澤澤

看不懂这个题目啊，OG的解释也看得我云里雾里的~~~可不可以帮忙详细分析一下啊。万分感谢

meixiang

我看og解释也看得不清不楚的，本来弄懂了，都被它说的不懂了

hughlv

99.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
signifi cant 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 .

食物辐射会杀死细菌从而降低腐烂程度。但是这种辐射也会降低食物本身的营养价值，比如会大幅降低维他命B1的成分。但是支持者称食物辐射的缺点并不比烹制要大。但是这个事实可能有些偏离本意（因为这些有辐射的食物大部分是生吃的），或者有误导，因为：

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food
distributors who gain from foods’ having a
longer shelf life

很大一部分支持者为食品分销商，他们从那些可长期保存的食物中获利。无关选项，我们不需要关心支持者的动机是什么，只需要关心他的支持是否符合逻辑。

(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be
present on food is not the only effect that
irradiation has

杀死细菌只是食物辐射的功效之一。这个选项看起来是strengthen支持者的观点。

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food
for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to
ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

烹制通常是食物消费的最后一步，但是食物辐射则保证食物可以有更长的存放时间。这个选项有些迷惑性，说明两者作用于不同阶段。但是跟E相比，这个weaken的作用比较弱。

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more
destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully
controlled irradiation is

烹制会比食物辐射损害更多的B1。重复了支持者的证据，起到的是strengthen的作用。

(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the
reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either
process individually is compounded

对于那些烹制的具辐射效应的食物，B1的损害是一个叠加效应。这个选项很好的说明了辐射与烹制之间不是二选一的关系，因此很成功的weaken了支持者将辐射与烹制之间进行对比的意义。因此E是正确选项。

hughlv

104. 要理解这道理，关键是理解为什么之前那些店倒闭了马上会有新的店开张。按差异化营销策略，那些新开张的小店应该是走一个不与大鳄直接竞争的路线，Colson's是非折扣店，那么这些小店如果是折扣店生存的可能性比较大。而现在又来了个折扣店大鳄SpendLess，那么这些小店在夹缝中生存的可能性就急剧下跌了。

yanyanzhou110

哇。谢谢你

soul饭

关于99题，我有个疑问。
我的理解是文章提到支持者说，辐射食物在降低营养方面不必烹饪食物缺点多，接下来的选项要削弱这个观点。

如果，辐射食物最终也要烹饪后才能实用，那么辐射+烹饪对食物营养更具杀伤性，那么就不应该食用辐射食物，从而削弱支持辐射食物的支持者的论断。

但是原文提到“因为这些有辐射的食物大部分是生吃的”，那就不是辐射+烹饪，我就不理解为啥E是正确选项了

sebaosweet

在文章中，作者提出了反对Proponents 两点意见，第一个是，beside the poit ,第二个是 misleading. 第一点意见的原因是，这些食物被吃的时候是raw，通俗来说就是类似于从树上摘下来就吃，那么irradiation 来retard （减缓，减慢）spoilage，就不必要了，因为从摘到吃只有很短的时间，就没有必要来杀菌以延长保存时间。不知道这样解释你懂不懂！嘿嘿！