求助~OG-CR-99！

蓝色棉花糖

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



OG的官方解释有一句话我不太理解：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.我觉得P说的话 推不出来只cook 和irradiated后再cook 剩下的BI一样多啊~感觉好像irradiated 完全不会destroy B1似的。
求牛人解答~感谢感谢~

wangjieava23

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2029&view=next

这个解释很清楚，很激动呀，老问题终于解决了。