扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2016-CR-111
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 _______.
many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods' having a longer shelf life
it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
情景：对食物进行放射可以杀菌，也防止了变坏。可是，却降低了营养价值。比如，放射损坏了食物中大部分VB1。放射的支持者指出，在这方面放射不比烹调坏。
推理：推理文段虽然没有直接给出结论，但是结论实际上已经非常清楚了，即，既然食物的烹饪可以被接受，那么放射就应该也可以被接受。由于前提和结论讲的事件相同，所以本题为类比推理。
选题方式：类比推理一共具有两个评估方向，要么提到“烹饪”或“放射”，要么给出与这两个案例相平行等价的案例C。
选项分析：
A选项：多数放射支持者是食物经销商，他们通过保质期长的食物来盈利。本选项没有提及烹饪。
B选项：很显然，杀菌并不是放射的唯一作用。本选项没有提及烹饪。
C选项：烹调是准备食物的最后一步，放射只是为了延长食物保质期。本选项给出了放射和烹饪的不同，但是和结论讨论的事件关系不大。
D选项：某些烹调方法对VB1的损坏大于有节制的放射。本选项没有提及烹饪。
E选项：Correct. 既被放射又被烹调的事物，其VB1的减损是两个过程之和。本选项给出了放射和烹饪的最本质不同，即，两者根本不是一个步骤，放射过的，还是要被烹饪，这样就是两倍的VB1损失量。属于CQ1：相似性问题。
本题的重点是：misleading
辐射对食物来说，会造成营养流失；烹饪对于食物来说，也会造成营养流失。
但，Irradiation是一手伤害，Cooking只能叠加伤害，两个的作用不一样，不能放在一起比较。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论