ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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 _______.

正确答案: E

相关帖子

更多...

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2919|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

og13-cr101求解.......

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-7-11 21:24:56 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
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 loger 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


答案是E
A无关 BC比较扯......D方向反了 可是E为什么是正确选项呢......求解答。。。。TAT

还有111题.....
Springfield Fire Commissioner:The vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street cors.Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness.There fore,we propose to remove the boxes.Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire.
Which of the following,if true,ost strongly supports the claim that the proposal,if carried out,will have the announced effect?
(A) The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
(B) Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs Springfield approximately $5 million annually.
(C) A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.
(D) Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department's capacity for responding to fires.
(E) On any given day,a significant percentage of public telephones in Springfield are out of service.
答案是A。。。
那C呢..? 不是很理解。。。。。

第一次发帖求助....先谢谢大家。。
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2013-7-11 22:05:05 | 只看该作者
E;

射线消毒的支持者认;不错!射线对维B1有破坏作用,但是cooking的破坏作用一点也不少。


作者批评这个说法;
要么是跑题了,(有的食物可以生吃,你比较cooking作什么?---跟我们讨论的没有关系嘛!)
要么误导;       (一个食物经过了射线照射,又经过了cooking你怎么知道那个破坏的维B1多一点?你怎么比较出来的破坏作用差不多?)

这就是E的意思,

可能会说;就是同样的食物一份只照射,一份只cooking 就可以比较破坏作用啦。只是这时经过照射的就只能生吃了,于是又回到了第一种跑题的情况了。


综上所说作者通过两个方面批评了射线照射的支持者的说法;1;射线照射和cooking比较没有意义(生吃不cooking)
                                                                                              2;比较没有办法得出结果                 (既cooking又照射)


板凳
发表于 2013-7-11 22:21:00 | 只看该作者
至于第二题就很简单了,路边的电话总是被人用来匿名打火警电话,所以有人建议把它们拆除,(这个建议的关键在于拆除后会不会影响报警)
建议者认为;大家都有手机所以既避免有人打匿名电话,又不影响大家报警。

A; 所有的报警电话都是用私人电话打的,(说明路边的电话对报警没有用嘛)
地板
 楼主| 发表于 2013-7-11 22:48:51 | 只看该作者
enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-11 22:21
至于第二题就很简单了,路边的电话总是被人用来匿名打火警电话,所以有人建议把它们拆除,(这个建议的关键 ...

灰常感谢......弱弱再问一下第二题关于A的解释是If prank calls from private telephones are traced back to their origin,that should deter people from making suck calll.....应该怎么去理解呢......还有..C选项呢....?
5#
发表于 2013-7-11 22:54:54 | 只看该作者
jsongdi 发表于 2013-7-11 22:48
灰常感谢......弱弱再问一下第二题关于A的解释是If prank calls from private telephones are traced bac ...

这是从私人电话可以追踪来源从而避免匿名电话方面说的

A; 可以提供两个信息,
1;可以避免匿名电话
2;不会影响火警


6#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-7-12 08:36:59 | 只看该作者
enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-11 22:54
这是从私人电话可以追踪来源从而避免匿名电话方面说的

A; 可以提供两个信息,

森森感谢~~~
7#
发表于 2013-10-9 23:14:12 | 只看该作者
enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-11 22:05
E;

射线消毒的支持者认;不错!射线对维B1有破坏作用,但是cooking的破坏作用一点也不少。

作者批评这个说法;
要么是跑题了,(有的食物可以生吃,你比较cooking作什么?---跟我们讨论的没有关系嘛!)
要么误导;       (一个食物经过了射线照射,又经过了cooking你怎么知道那个破坏的维B1多一点?你怎么比较出来的破坏作用差不多?)


这个题目我看了好久也看不明白,你是我搜到回答得比较容易理解的版本(不容易理解的是这个 http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... ght=OG13%2BCR%2B101

不过看了你的解释之后,我有个小小的问题
这句话“Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.”一直让我觉得他们的意思是指“单irradiation和单cooking破坏B1的程度是差不多的”。你说的是“一个食物经过了射线照射,又经过了cooking你怎么知道那个破坏的维B1多一点?你怎么比较出来的破坏作用差不多?”,那么,难道食物一定需要经过irradiation再cooking吗?也是可以不经过irradiation而直接cooking的吧?那他们的话有什么misleading的呢?这个题目又没有前提说“food一定要先irradiation才能cooking”

我写得有点乱不知道你看不看得懂我的意思,CR做到后面这里正确率只剩下百分之五六十了,超想哭的T_T
8#
发表于 2013-10-9 23:21:01 | 只看该作者
enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-11 22:05
E;

射线消毒的支持者认;不错!射线对维B1有破坏作用,但是cooking的破坏作用一点也不少。

嗯,我再看了一下那个不太好理解的版本,好像就理解了
题目有先提到much irradiated food是不需要cooking的
那接下来就是那些需要cooking的irradiated food,他们加起来的破坏作用会大于单cooking
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-9 02:57
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部