下一道: 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 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 . (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 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 -- by 会员 linlanjun1993 (2012/5/30 19:25:23)
好吧我也被我自己今天蒙对的一道CR题绕晕了,先帮你看看这题理清理清我的思路 this fact指什么? Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking 支持者的意思就是说cooking和这个irradiation是一样的,都是会把维他命B1(或者营养物质)给搞掉的
第一个是beside the point,since much irradiated food is eaten raw,说明这些食物不会被cook,所以只有irradiate会把这些B1搞跑 第二个misleading,就是他们认为既然是no worse,就两者的效果旗鼓相当,言下之意,就是一个food无论是cook还是irradiate,它所流失的B1或者营养物质都是一样的,所以他们认为irradiate是没有害处的,因为需要cook的食品,就算irradiate不存在,它的营养物质也会因为cook所流失 但是事实是不是这样呢?E选项就给了很好的解答,对于irradiate之后的food再煮,跑掉的B1数量是更多的 |