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 food’s having a longer 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
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
The irradiation of food kills bacte ...
lisalee 发表于 2010-4-23 11:07
从“However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading”这句，看出作者说这帮proponents的观点不是beside the point就是misleading.beside the point说了，这些irradiated food 根本不用被cook(都生吃）所以看不出来cook和irradiation哪个破坏维生素更严重（没法比较）。
然后让你添一个条件能说明这帮proponents的观点是misleading，E说如果食物同时被irradiated和cooked，维生素被破坏的程度是加总的并不是单独计算的，所以你看到的只是被破坏的总和，而不是irradiation破坏多少，cook破坏多少，所以misleading.proponents相信的irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking(irradiation破坏的并不比cooking少）就不能得到肯定。如果能单独分析出irradiation破坏的量比cooking破坏的多，就不misleading了。
