GWD-5-30新看法

niuniu0303

no conclusion

jason_jufe

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-5 8:49:00的发言：

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。

对lawyer的解释有点疑问，文章中如何能看出是把食物分成两类？难道又是本题另外加进的假设？如果是假设，能不能说明以上论证出现外加信息，不能很好解释选项正确性。open discussion。

PS：很佩服lawyer的论证能力，因为看过他很多帖子，从中获得很多思路。

morning715

看晕了...上了趟洗手间回来突然有点茅塞顿开的感觉...

支持C.

misleading使人误解...支持irradiation的人把irradiation和cooking摆一块比,存在什么情况才能把这种比较说成使人误解呢?

因为C,这两种程序根本就不可比,都不是一个阶段的...因此这种比较会让人产生误解他们可比...

而E,压根就不是这回事啊...而且它的原因是for food that is both...如果真要拿出道理来推翻支持irradiation的那帮人的理论,就应该拿出有说服力有代表性的例子,而这只是举了食物中的一部分特例,并只说明了无法得出proponents of irradiation的结论...不能成为推翻其结论的理由...

 

不知道表达清楚没有...不过边打出来边觉得必C无疑了...

bigmachine

这里的irridiation 是不是有用微波炉微波的意思啊？

ljc0729

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

归根揭底,导致食物VITMIN B1 的流失有两种可能,一种是COOKING ,另一种是IRRADIATION.

在最后一句话中, However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

前半段的point是指在破坏食物VITAMIN B1的层面上来讲，cook过的时候和irradiated过的食物其实是差不多的，然后接着那个since是用来解释这个现象的，这一段非常的清除。

后半段用了个Misleading,说实话我一开始非常不了解放个misleading在这里干什么，可是大家应该想想什么样子的情况会让我们觉得mislead呢？

读了E才知道，原来当食物即被cook,又被irradiate过的时候，他们对于事物VITAMIN B1的破坏效果就不那么清楚了。

因为我们很难测量具体被破坏的vitamin b1中，到底有多少是因为被cook过而丢失得，有多少是被irradiate过而丢失。

所以E是最恰当的选项。

c选项只不过是把一种现象说了出来，并不能使我们感到一种MISLEADING的感觉。所以C不对。

ssl507

lawyer分析得很有道理，但答案C不如E明显，我想作者不会绕个那么大的弯。

要比较irradiation和cook谁更worse，是要求分别比较，然而如果你用来检验cook毁坏V-B的程度的样本含有已irradiation的样本，得出的结果就明显misleading。

sufehw

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-5 8:49:00的发言：

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。

Laywer将事物分成两类，不过偶觉得应该改下：对于不需要cooking的食物，支持者的证据无关；另一类则是both irradiated and cooked。

Vote for E.

lolita0320

我也来说一下。看了lawyer的解释后我又仔细研究了下文章和题目。选E确实的对的。首先看这句话“ irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking”,和前面的一大段描述结合，翻译成中文就是，虽然说保鲜会怎样怎样不好，但是保鲜的支持这说cooking也好不到哪里。也就是说cooking会造一样多的成营养的流失。如果要说这句话是mislead的话就是说cooking会造成更多的营养流失罗。。好，现在来看答案，C，cooking是烹饪的最后一道程序和这个观点根本就没有关系嘛，而E，保鲜和cooking加在一起，会使营养加倍流失，注意compound的意思，在经济学里面一般都是按复利计算的意思，所以这里才会说是营养的加倍流失。好了，有了这个观点就可以去把那个空补充完整了。

写的有点多，但还是希望大家耐心看完。到目前为止我还没发现自己的思路有哪些问题。如果有欢迎大家指正哈~~

meganlee618

這題言下之意是反駁 Proponents 所說的, "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"

反駁之1是認為much irradiated food is eaten raw,

反駁之2, 若irradiate food 不是eaten raw, 那必然是必須要被cooked, --->若被 food 同時被irradiated 和cooked 時, VitaminB1 流失許多的話, 那麼就不能說  irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking

答案肯定要選E的, 因為C沒有提到到底irradiated food 與降低VitaminB1 的關係, 沒法反駁Proponents !

meganlee618

再補充一下, 文中提到

for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded, 那麼單純cook food , 只導致vitamin B1流失一部份, 若加上又是irradiated food, 那麼 vitamin B1的流失程度可是"compounded" 的喔, 所以 irradiated food +must be cooked   is "worse than" cooking.