好多问题啊。。。SOS！！

cutebella

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
   
   
   很杯具的忘了答案了。。。。 哪位好心人士有印象的提示下  顺便讲解下。。。  叩谢了！！！
   
   

vincent007

Argument Construction
Situation Irradiation kills bacteria but it also lowers the amount of nutrients—including vitamin
B1—in foods. Proponents try to dismiss this concern by arguing that cooking destroys
B1 as well. Th at point is said to be misleading.
Reasoning Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents’ claim to be
misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating
that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent seems to be
suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated because it
will end up with the same amount of B1 either way. But if the eff ects of radiation and
cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the
proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.

A Th is might make the assurances of the proponents less credible but it does not make their claim
misleading.
B Nothing about the proponents’ claim suggests that the only eff ect irradiation has is to kill
bacteria.
C Th e fact that cooking and irradiation have diff erent purposes does not indicate that the
proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.
D If anything, this strengthens the proponents’ point by minimizing the relative damage caused by
irradiation.
E Correct. Th is option most logically completes the argument.
Th e correct answer is E.

vincent007

OG 12/ 99T

bonnie0715

第一题E

cutebella

By stating that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent seems to be suggesting that any food that is going to be cooked might as well be irradiated  为什么？  不好意思啊  我太菜了  不是很理解。。。