请教OG12-99

winny0821

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！

dongstar

大概意思 照射了 营养没了 但是因为cook之后营养也会没 所以照射是可以的 这是错的 因为这些水果一般都生吃（跟cook无关）再不就即使cook了 营养丢失会更多（照射丢一部分 cook丢一部分）
黑体说的也是这么个意思

logowuyi

文章要反对的观点是 irradiation 并不比 cooking 会多降低营养
本题中把食物分成了两类进行讨论
一:可以生吃
二,要烧才能吃 这类食品 烧和照会造成更大的loss 那么不就是反对了上面的观点
                      因为如果不照得话 只需要烧就可以了 这样就少了loss

winny0821

谢谢楼上的解释~~终于明白了~~

templars

3楼说的在理。
支持者的观点是：cooking跟Irradiation一样会造成营养流失。本文是反驳该观点。
1。照射过的食物直接生吃，不用cooking，cooking没有营养流失
2。照射过的食物，再cooking，二者均会造成营养流失，无从说哪个造成的多哪个造成的少。

zhangluE

我覺得A可以這樣理解：「一旦rice and yams進入西非，當地人就不再發展staple crops」
裡面的that they stopped cultivating 隱含著之前就已經有在cultivate這種staple crops