GWD－5－30，讨论过，但最近有定论了

lawyer_1

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 _______.

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

该题经过了很长时间谈论，我虽然仍选C，但有新的理由说服我选C。

1。为何说beside the point: 因为对于 irradiated food that is eaten raw。不涉及到cooking的问题，所以拿rradiation 和cooking比较是无关的

2。为何说misleading：对于不是eaten raw的食物，支持者的话让人误解为irradiation是好的，比cooking好。但因为cooking对 irradiated food that is NOT eaten raw是必须的，而irradiation只是保鲜，不是必需的，可有可无。这在情况下，本来可以不用irradiation去保鲜，但proponents提的事实却让人误解为要irradiation，因为它不必cooking差。

3。从行文结构上讲，作者反驳支持者是采用将食物分两类：对于不需要cooking的食物，支持者的证据无关；对于需要cooking的食物，因为cooking是必需的，你没得选，而irradiation不是必需的，所以支持者的话让人产生了误解，说你必须选irradiation，因为它比cooking好。

4。对于E，无法让人误解什麽。

BoatOnTheRiver

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

--------------------------------------------------------

I chose C based on some of my own thoughts below. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks.

I think the two parts connected by “either…or…” are close related, and therefore can be put together(integrated) to strengthen the author’s point. For example, we can say:

… However, this fact is both beside the point and misleading, since irradiated food is eaten raw, and irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods while cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption.

How do you think about this line of thinking?

Maybe it’s a bit awkward and not so convincing. Let me try again.

Using C, we can switch the two parties following “either” and “or” without changing the meaning and the flow of the argument—

            … However, this fact is either misleading, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else beside the point, since “cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods”.

Using E in the place of C in above sentences, on the other hand, would seem to be either intrusive (   coming out of  nowhere) or too far-reaching.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-12 15:23:32编辑过]

babypace

对不住大家，我选的是B。请大家再仔细看看题目，和B选项。

我感觉C是无关选项，E没有导致误导。

tempture说帖上来讨论，那我就贴上来。大家拍吧。

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 than 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 _______.

食物的放射能杀死细菌由此来延缓腐坏。然而，它也降低了食物的营养价值。比如，放射破坏大量食物里能含有的维生素B1。支持者指出，放射不比烧煮食物能破坏更多的维生素B1。然而这个事实是没有意义的，由于很多的放射食物是生吃的，或者这个事实是会导致错误理解的，因为（B）显然杀死细菌并不是辐射唯一的作用。

many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life

it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

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

支持者指出，放射不比烧煮食物能破坏更多的维生素B1。支持者为什么要拿烧煮食物来做对比？因为支持者想证明辐射的好处，就是它不比烧煮破坏更多的维生素B1，而且可以杀死细菌。也就是说，这个隐含一个条件的，就是烧煮一般不太破坏维生素B1，否则，支持者没有必要拿出来做对比。

但是事实是，辐射破坏大量的维生素B1，这个在题目前一句里就说了。 所以支持者举出这个例子会导致误解。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-7 12:12:55编辑过]

G-CRACKER

babypace, B是无关选项呀！这题讨论的中心是 irradiation is no worse in this respect（破坏VB1） than cooking. 主要讲破坏VB1的，杀菌只是一个引子，引出下文。

昨天看了很久，没有结果，今天再看，藕选E。

不看选项，misleading的意思就是irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.是误导人的，或者说两者不可比的。

再看选项。

C, 说一个（cooking）是后道工序，一个（irritation）是前道工序。在破坏VB1这一点上，两者是在不同的时点上进行的，不同的时点上的破坏力不同，因此就有了比较的意义，irritation 不比cooking破坏更多的VB1，所以支持用irritation。这正是支持者的理论：后道cooking可以损失VB1, 前道irritation 损失的并没有后道多呀！所以C没有misleading，而是support!

E,说当同时采用两者时，损失的VB1是两者分别损失的量之和。在破坏VB1这一点上，两者是在同一时点上进行的，对于这个合二为一的整体动作而言，二者比较没有意义，因为两个个体的比较是要比出谁好谁坏，但比较的结果对于整体效果而言，是没有任何意义的，因为无论是一好一坏，还是二者一样，整体都是二者的和。在这一点上，比较没有了意义，所以就是misleading.

继续讨论。。。

babypace

不同意嘟嘟的说法。E的解释和在句中作用理解错误

重剑无锋

是不是结论就是C了啊？我是支持C的。

babypace

以下是引用G-CRACKER在2004-12-7 23:36:00的发言：
babypace, B是无关选项呀！这题讨论的中心是 irradiation is no worse in this respect（破坏VB1） than cooking. 主要讲破坏VB1的，杀菌只是一个引子，引出下文。

昨天看了很久，没有结果，今天再看，藕选E。

不看选项，misleading的意思就是irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.是误导人的，或者说两者不可比的 （beside the point已经说了这两个是没有比较意义的，而且已经举例了，现在要说出misleading的理由）我觉得题目不需要我们给出两个“比较没有意义”的理由。

E,说当同时采用两者时，损失的VB1是两者分别损失的量之和。在破坏VB1这一点上，两者是在同一时点上进行的，对于这个合二为一的整体动作而言，二者比较没有意义，因为两个个体的比较是要比出谁好谁坏，但比较的结果对于整体效果而言，是没有任何意义的，因为无论是一好一坏，还是二者一样，整体都是二者的和。在这一点上，比较没有了意义，所以就是misleading.

把选项E放回去看，“放射不比cooking对VB1的破坏更多，会引起误导，因为放射和cooking 一起对VB1的破坏是二者分别破坏的累加”。

你对E的解释是由于E说出了这种比较是“没有意义”的，但是我还是看不出上面的句子里E能给出导致误导的理由。但是我想“没有意义”和“误导”是两回事。

我再看，再想-----

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-8 13:25:17编辑过]

babypace

看了再看，好像E的比C更好些。继续看-----

哎，这些题看得头疼。

G-CRACKER

看了babypace的解释，对于beside the point and misleading，藕一点新的想法。。。

beside the point: 即两者的比较明显没有意义。

misleading: 即两者的比较看似有意义，但实际上是误导，其实没有意义。

C, 并不能使二者的比较失去意义，E是误导，今天还是选E.

继续讨论。

msfox

E

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&star=8&replyid=492054&id=56351&skin=0&page=1  77楼。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-10 22:41:31编辑过]