求解一道相当纠结的GWD填空题，千恩万谢。

Lovenkrands

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.  roponents 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 food’s 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 final 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

答案是E，没看懂，求解。

lx0604

我也没完全懂
proponent说辐射总归不会比cook差，但是作者的意思是，这个论点完全跑题了， 因为很多辐射处理的东西是生吃的，要么就是被误导。。因为XXX

三零年代

Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.

Misleading是说这句话会误导。
E 食物是辐射和cook相结合的，损失也是两者共同作用下的损失。
言外之意，怎么能下结论说知道辐射的损失比cook的小呢？

这不是赤果果的误导吗？