GWD5-30

willandgracer

Q30:

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 _______.

1. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life

2. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

3. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

4. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

5. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

为什么这道题的答案是C呢，我觉得E比较好啊。请指教！

Thanks a million!

XIAOHANMEIME

到底是选什么呢，我选的是C，但给出的答案是E，大家怎么看呢，讨论

一下吧.

lxj19820127

我觉得选C, 这道题目的逻辑主线是：

A方法在加工产品P的时候有好处也有坏处，提倡者说A方法在加工时并不比B方法差。 然而，其实前面所说的要么没说到点子上 ,因为A是特定的时候才用，要么就是误导的，因为在通常情况下，加工产品要经过两道工序:A和B (意味着A和B进行好坏比较是没有意义的）

XIAOHANMEIME

对阿，我觉得mislead的意思是把不具有比较基础的两件东西用来比较

是不成立的，那么这样C就符合了mislead的标准，因为两种方法的用途是

不同的。而E说每种方法的危害都会被放大，好像没有什么mislead的成分

阿

不知道这样理解对不对，请nn们指正

flamedream

这是一道争议题，说说我的心路历程

我开始的答案是E

从题目来看“However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since ”似乎E更平行一些，EITHER。。。OR ELSE 应该是包括所有的情况。“ much irradiated food ”和“for food that is both irradiated and cooked”在意义上平行并构成一个整体。呵呵，但是这不是语法题，只能做为参考

后来觉得C更好

“the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded”似乎并不构成MISLEADING，倒是和前面BESIDE THE POINT 比较像

C中两种不同的作用才是MISLEADING

Miles

windlake

献丑了
题目：
以下那个选项从逻辑上最能完成论点？
 
用放射方法杀菌可以减缓食物腐败。但是放射线同时会减低很多食物的营养成份。例如，放射会杀死食物所含的大部分维生素B。支持放射杀菌的人指出，说到减低食物的营养成份，烹调比放射也好不到哪里去。可是，这种说法，要不就是在转移论题——因为大部分用放射杀菌的食物最终是生吃的；要不就是误导读者——因为：
 
A.赞成放射杀菌的人大多数是食品分销商，更长的食物货架储藏时间对他们有利。（说出了irradiation proponent的可能动机，但是不能解释irradiation和cooking比较是misleading）
B.毋庸置疑杀菌不是放射线针对食物的唯一作用（和misleading没关系）
C.烹调通常是处理食物的最后一环，而放射线杀菌是为了让易腐烂食物有很长的存储时间（本文讨论在存储过程中用放射杀菌到底好不好，谈烹调显然是一种misleading）
D.有些烹调技术升至比放射线对维生素B的杀伤力还要强（这个是支持radiation proponent的观点的）
E.同时经过放射处理和烹调的食物，维生素B的降低量会更大（和misleading无关）

willandgracer

many  thanks !!!!!!