gwd-11-12

coolgirl

顶一下

robertchu

Cool.  Happy to get another supporter :-)

mindfree

I stick to C. Since the argument is about "irradiation is no worse than cooking", C points out that these two are not comparable in the first place.

E is not relevant unless the argument is about something else, such sd "the VB that irradiation removes/destroys is exactly the amount that human being will not be able to absorb and therefore irradiation does not cause nutrition loss"

I was leaning towards E at first. E does look like a typical GMAT answer.  

robertchu

I think the key is what is the argument really about?
My opinion is that the argument between the passage author and the proponents of irridiation is about "whether the fact that irridiationlowers nutritiional value is pretty bad (author) or not (proponents).
Thinking in this perspective, E would look like a better answer, at least to me.
Open to discussion.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-6-26 1:07:29编辑过]

fair_sword

同意C:

也同意robertchud 文章论证关系。正是这个论证过程才使得C比E好。

However,后面的是用来反驳proponents的。 this fact(就是proponents of irradiation通过 比较irradiation 和cooking 得出 irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking) is 1。beside the poin, since....., 2. misleading, since irradiation 和cooking是两个不同的过程>>>>两者不具可比较性,当然是misleading 了。

请大家继续讨论

dashasha

I chose E.

kingsoft

   本来选的E，看了mindfree的解释，确实觉得E不足以说明misleading

   但是C选项也让我脑子打节

   

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-6-26 20:09:05编辑过]

robertchu

以下是引用fair_sword在2004-6-26 3:32:00的发言：

同意C:

也同意robertchud 文章论证关系。正是这个论证过程才使得C比E好。

However,后面的是用来反驳proponents的。 this fact(就是proponents of irradiation通过 比较irradiation 和cooking 得出 irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking) is 1。beside the poin, since....., 2. misleading, since irradiation 和cooking是两个不同的过程>>>>两者不具可比较性,当然是misleading 了。

请大家继续讨论

Although irradiation and cooking are at different stage of food processing and serve different purpose, but these differences along do not render irradiation and cooking incomparable in terms of "lowering nutrition value", do they?

fair_sword

设Irradiation 降低nutrition value 4, cooking 降低 nutrition value 5.

Proponents of irradition的 evidence是：in this respect(通过比较irradiation,和cooking) 结论：no worse than cooking

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

对于any food that is both irradiated and cooked. the reduction of vitamin B1必然是4+5,可这并不能反驳Proponents of irradition的evidence.就不能指出misleading.我一直认为E是无关选项

而C:通过指出Proponents of irradition的evidence.中irradition 和cooking不具备可比性。就指出了misleading.

Open to discussion

tianwan

I firmly stick to E. The proponent of irridation states that cooking destroys Vb more than irridation does. The reasoning of the proponent is that cooking destroys Vb but cooking is OK , so irridation is OK.

C doesn't weaken this reasoning. E points out irridaion will double the damage on Vb of cooking, thus irridaion is not OK if cooking is a must-be.  So, E points out that the proponents are misleading.