GWD-5-30新看法

Cactus2010

仔细看题目:
However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

In my judgement, 这个either..or..的不是简单的并列而且是涵盖了所有情况。

第一个reason说 much irradiated food is eaten raw, 说明大部分irradiated food可以生吃,这部分的比较是 eaten raw vs irradiatied 再吃. 跟cooking和irradiated对B1影响强弱比较无关,所以是beside the point.

而另一部分不能生吃的是什么情况呢? else misleading! 不能生吃的不就是需要cooking的么,所以对于需要cooking的比较部分应该是process of cooking vs process of irradiation+cooking, 选E就构成因果了。

Dsight

这题看得超级郁闷啊~

sophie2elise

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2029&view=next
这个解释的很好~

默默行走

the misleading here means that there is ONLY one choice either irradiation or cooking.

u4462952

从either...or...看出前后要对称：much irradiated food is eaten raw 是对beside the point的解释。 所以后面划线部分内容也应该对else misleading有解释作用。  
C其实没有错，但只是不能够解释misleading，反而有点点侧重于beside the point
E则可以用来解释misleading。因为当food既irradiated又cooked的时候，两者的作用是compounded，所以不能区分哪个作用大，哪个作用小。



对于为什么题目要用“for food that is both irradiated and cooked"来举例，是因为前面是“irradiated food but not cooked”. 由于either...or...的对称，所以后面用"irradiated and cooked food"来举例是恰当而且有说服力的。

curtis0063

从either...or...看出前后要对称：much irradiated food is eaten raw 是对beside the point的解释。 所以后面划线部分内容也应该对else misleading有解释作用。  
C其实没有错，但只是不能够解释misleading，反而有点点侧重于beside the point

-- by 会员 u4462952 (2012/7/18 23:12:17)

C 其实也没有侧重于 beside the point，因为它只是把 cooking 和 irradiation 的行为作用说明了一下，但不是这题要讨论的重点，也就是说故意误导考生，到不重要的问题，所以算是无关选项。

这题应该搞死了很多人，就算能用英文思考，也不一定第一次作题，就能弄清题目想问的问题，这里有 Manhattan 的解释，RonPurewal 的说明都很值得一看，尤其是 Sentence Correction。
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/gmatprep-irradiation-of-food-t9630.html

irenejz

misleading那部分好像是明白了，但是不明白前面的“However, this fact is either beside the point, since much food is eaten raw...”这里的this fact 是指“irradiation destroys B1”吗？为什么它beside the point呢？看了Cactus2010的解释还是不明白

irenejz

我实在不懂OG解释中的这句话“By stating that irradiation destroys no more B1 than cooking does,the proponents 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.” how "seems to be"?

song910

Ron 的解释： when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

lesley0927

Cactus2010 发表于 2011-7-5 17:41
仔细看题目:However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, o ...

解释的非常好，谢谢