which of the following most logically complete the argument?
the irrdiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. however, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. for example, irradiation destoys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. proponents of irradition point out that irradition is no worse in this respect than cooking. however, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eatern raw, or else misleading,since_.
答案是：for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1associated with either process individually is compounded
OG给的解释：for the proponents claim to be misleading it needs to be suggesting somethings about irradition that is false. by starting that irradition destroys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent 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. But if the effects of radiation and cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the proponents' claim suggests something that is false.
我完全不能理解OG的解释，特别是黑体部分， 麻烦各位帮忙求解！作者: miweekend 时间: 2012-9-19 22:12
D OG中解释：by stating that irradiation destorys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent 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.
OG中解释：by stating that irradiation destorys no more B1 than cooking does, the proponent 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.
