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 proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods' 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
支持者把辐射和烹调比较，会让大众误以为所有的食物分两类，要么受辐射，要么被烹制，但实际上，有些食物是既受到辐射又得被烹制的，这样一来这些食物中的维他命B呈两倍减少。在这一点上，支持者误导了大家。答案的关键有二，一，irradiation and cooking，二，misleading作者: gracehanyin 时间: 2012-10-9 06:20
辐射事物会杀死细菌，因此防止腐烂。但是，辐射这种做法减少很多食物中的营养。然后举例。提倡辐射的人呢指出，对于此点（可能是减少食物营养这点）来说，并没有比烹调差。但是这个观点besides the point （跑题？）或者misleading，因为。。。
我不知道我翻译的对不。。。但是并不能理解怎么推出来两者再一次，效果就加倍。。作者: miweekend 时间: 2012-10-10 06:21
