真人麻将游热新闻
澎湃新闻APP下载
真人麻将游:热门推荐后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 544|回复: 0
最后登录在线时间66 小时人品币8066 注册时间阅读权限140帖子精华12好友
大学二年级, 积分 8069, 距离下一级还需 931 积分
人品币8066 帖子
请教各路高人一道OG12里CR部分99题。。。
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 signifi cant 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 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 fi nal 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
这个答案的解释我觉得看到我很苦恼（esp. boldface part!!）。。。请问有人可以解释一下下么？谢谢啦~
Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents’ claim to be
misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating
that irradiation 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 eff ects of radiation and
cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the
proponents’ claim suggests something that is false
来了这么久为何不进去看看?
记住我的登录状态
您也可以使用其他账号登陆:奔驰宝马游戏大厅热新闻
澎湃新闻APP下载
奔驰宝马游戏大厅:热门推荐后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 14810|回复: 37
在线时间 小时
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 signifi cant 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 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 fi nal 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这个答案的解释我觉得看到我很苦恼（esp. boldface part!!）。。。请问有人可以解释一下下么？谢谢啦~ Which option most logically completes the argument? For the proponents’ claim to be misleading it needs to be suggesting something about irradiation that is false. By stating that irradiation 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 eff ects of radiation and cooking combine to destroy more B1 than cooking or irradiation alone would, then the proponents’ claim suggests something that is false.
在线时间 小时
我是这么理解的：Proponents of irradiation的主要立场是irradiation与cooking同样能破坏维生素，所以一种食物irradiation后生吃和食物irradiation后cooking再吃所丢失的维生素是一样的，也就是说只要一种食物不生吃，那有一部分维生素是肯定要在cooking过程中被破坏的，无论之前是否被irradiation。Proponents of irradiation所默认的是irradiation能破坏的cooking也会破坏，因而只要把他们这个理论基础拆除就可以驳倒他们。E可以说明cooking和irridiation可能破坏的是不同种的维生素，也就是说irradiation能破坏的cooking不一定能破坏，所以选E。
在线时间 小时
嗯。不过我觉得LS似乎在一个地方有个理解错误哦。文中提到的cooking和irradiation带来的损害都是维生素B1的丢失，没有说是不同的维生素的流失哦。经过我重复看了几遍，我自己的重新理解是：题中proponent应该认为，既然irradiation来的负面影响跟cooking带来的影响差不多（都是维生素B1的流失），那么他们其中一者或者两者一起产生的负面影响应该都是差不多的。所以irradiation的负面影响不需要过于担忧。如果能够说明irradiation的负面影响（尽管跟cooking一样都是B1流失）需要引起注意的话，就可以反驳proponent 的观点了。这就是E选项所说的：irradiation和cooking两者一起造成的B1流失的量是叠加起来的，所以irradiation带来的损害不可以忽视。这样理解呢？！
在线时间 小时
最后一句是为了反驳proponents的说法。proponents觉得irradiation没害处，因为irradiation和cooking一样带来了B1的损失。但是反驳者提出了两点反驳意见，第一认为proponent的观点偏离话题，irradiation后的食物大部分是生吃的，（如果生吃，食物中的维生素根本不会被破坏，这就跟cooking没关系了）；第二，proponent的观点可能误导消费者，因为如果irradiation无关紧要，那么消费者可能把irradiation后的食物再cook，这样会加倍维生素的损失。综合两点，irradiation的害处不能忽视。
在线时间 小时
对这样解释我不是很理解：“第一认为proponent的观点偏离话题，irradiation后的食物大部分是生吃的，（如果生吃，食物中的维生素根本不会被破坏，这就跟cooking没关系了）”因为前面不是说了irradiation和cooking都会破坏B1吗，为啥irradiation后的食物生吃就不会破坏维生素了呢？？
在线时间 小时
而且正因为这样所以irradiation后的食物再cooking才会造成维生素的流失是compound
在线时间 小时
和楼上同问啊前面不是说since much irradiated food is eaten raw么~~既然只irradiation可以生吃，那就和只cooking再吃的效果一样嘛~~这里怎么反驳了irradiation不必cooking坏？
在线时间 小时
我觉得吧，其实那些支持者误导人是让人觉的反正cooking也要丢失B1，怎么样都是吃不到嘴巴里，所以辐射的不好的方面可以忽略了。他有一个非常隐含的假设是辐射和cooking是并列而且排他的，要么因为辐射丢B1，要么因为cooking丢B1。但实际上不是并列排他的，在时间上应该是有前后而且是联系在一起的，。答案就是指出这个不好的方面实际上是加重了B1的流失。这个题有点像GMAT经常出的一种题，就是A会产生什么后果，而B产生的后果更好，所以应该用B。但如果weaken的话，就是A和B可以一起作，产生的后果更好。而这个题就是A产生一个不好的后果，但是A产生的后果不比B的更坏，所以A的这个缺点不是个大事。weaken的话，就是A和B一起是不是就更差了。浅见啊，大家讨论。
在线时间 小时
看看别人的解释：D says: certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is Observe the word &Certain kinds of cooking&.. It doesnt mention that all kinds of cooking are destructive. But we need a strong point to fill the blank in the passage. Moreover, it introduces a new term called &carefully controlled irradiation & which is not discussed in the passage. We are trying to compare only &certain kinds& of cooking against &carefully controlled& irradiation. which is a very weak comparison. Hence D doesnt say that cooking is destructive than irradiation. It says &certian kinds of cooking& is destructive than&carefully controlled irradiation&. Even if it says cooking is destructive than irradiation., This is not what we want. We want the opposite of it. On the other hand, E says for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded Suppose irradiation reduces B1 by 10%. Cooking reduces B1 by 10%. If the irradiated food is cooked, then B1 is reduced on the whole by 19%. If irradiated food is also cooked again, then there is loss of Higher percentage of Vitamin B. This means to say that irradiation is more destructive than cooking. Though irradiation and cooking are interlinked, proponents are trying to mislead by showing them independently.
在线时间 小时
可不可以这样认为：老外cooking之前习惯于先用irradiation杀菌，所以irradiation会加剧了营养的流失，这样E就不难理解了。
所属分类: GMAT考试
正在浏览此版块的会员 ()
ChaseDream 论坛
All Rights Reserved.福 利 彩 票 七 星 彩 票 开 奖 1 6 0 2 2热新闻
澎湃新闻APP下载
福 利 彩 票 七 星 彩 票 开 奖 1 6 0 2 2:热门推荐