GWD-5-30新看法

sheilajin

本来很坚定的选C，看了讨论稿后也对E摸不找头脑

但再仔细读了遍原文后，好像确实应该选E

一方面beside the point，因为irradiated的食物不需要cooking，说明本来是不用破坏的，和cooking比没有意义。

E 或者是misleading的，因为就算cooking，两者的作用也是叠加的。irradiated不管有没有比cooking破坏的多，都是有加重破坏的，比较irradiated和cooking的破坏程度误导人们认为是两者破坏相同，一起作用后破坏也只是单一效果，而不是叠加效果。

C的话就不存在misleading这个效果，怎么说，可能是混淆概念吧。

感觉这题的关键还是在misleading这个词的把握上，因为C确实也反驳了proponents

alphonx

我觉得E将范围缩小了，for food that is both irradiated and cooked,只限定于both irratdiated and cooked的food。而前面的内容指的是所有food（包括eaten raw和cookied的）
misleading的是，因为损失的V不比cooking少，让人觉得应该irradiate。
而事实是irradiae只是保鲜作用，可有可无（C选项）。

JasonTang

看了楼上诸位NN的解释，觉得问题的关键还是在于怎样理解这个“misleading”上。

既然前半句说了只irradiation不cook的情况，后半句应该是同时包括irradiation和cook的情况，而E刚好说到“这两种情况的结合会导致维生素流失更多”，因此说明irradiation（不论存在cook还是不存在cook的情况下）都导致维生素流失。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-10-5 21:13:28编辑过]

龙飞凤舞

我也选的C，觉得LZ老大说的对极了

只有C让人（那些可能不需要irradiation的人）会产生误解，认为irradiation好

而E没有

snowofjune

vote for E. 11楼和800分大牛toni得解释都很好，令人信服。我本身也觉得应该是E, 虽然打开此贴看到是lawyer主张选C的时候怀疑过自己，不过终究是道理说服人啊。既然前一句是说要么生吃， 后一句和它相对当然是要么煮着吃。我怎么都不会想到C上去的。

tigerlulu74

GWD5-Q30:

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（离题，不中肯）, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading（令人误解的）, 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

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

结论：irradiation不比cooking更伤维B

1）  离题：因为大量irradiation食物是生吃的，所以与cooking无关，没得比，离题—cooking不存在，与cooking 无关，无法比。

2）  误导：既要rirradiation又要cooking的，对维B的伤害是两个单独过程的合并，没法区分两个过程，因为它们并不是分开的两个部份，而是须合并共同产生的，所以不存在比的问题，所以，误导--人们对它们进行比较。

选E

tangyuehua

以下是引用tigerlulu74在2008-1-13 0:33:00的发言：

GWD5-Q30:

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（离题，不中肯）, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading（令人误解的）, 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

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

结论：irradiation不比cooking更伤维B

1）  离题：因为大量irradiation食物是生吃的，所以与cooking无关，没得比，离题—cooking不存在，与cooking 无关，无法比。

2）  误导：既要rirradiation又要cooking的，对维B的伤害是两个单独过程的合并，没法区分两个过程，因为它们并不是分开的两个部份，而是须合并共同产生的，所以不存在比的问题，所以，误导--人们对它们进行比较。

选E

我也强烈支持E项！！！

但不同意上面对E项中Compounded的理解（“两个单独过程的合并，没法区分两个过程”）。

查了查金山词霸，有这样一条意思比较适合："To add to; increase: 使增加；增加：
High winds compounded the difficulties of the firefighters.”

E项中Compouned的意思应该是，irradiation+cooking的VB1破坏作用是复合的，相加在一起的，也就是说irradiation时会造成破坏，cooking时候又会造成破坏，所以拿irradiation的破坏作用和cooking的破坏作用相比是没有意义的，是会误导人的。

Mars861227

我是这么理解的，CE都是削弱，但从文章机结构看只能选E

C的逻辑是irradiation与cooking无关，因为它们的用途不一样（c是准备吃，i是保鲜），所以无法比较。

E的逻辑是因为两者在共同作用(compound)，所以不能说哪个更差，同样无法比较

再看原文信息“beside the point”意思是“无关”，并作出解释就像lz说的因为是i是eaten raw,而cooking是熟的，所以无关。

所以第二个misleading就不应该是从无关削弱，而是从相关但无法分清方面削弱，所以C错E对

jesuisdesole

ABDE明显无关

所以选C

汗!

rpch2004

支持E

c属于beside the point

E属于misleading