[問題]GWD-11-12

[bear]

又是我 :P
因為看大家都沒在討論gwdCR ,所以決定繼續po問題....
(沒有啦~~其實是我邏輯濫的粉 :-$ )

Q12:

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 the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s 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

這題好像是選E(在SC版區的答案裡).... 可我選C 耶....

誰能來釐清我的觀念???

[micht]

我記得這題答案不是(C)嗎????????

View 1: irradiation of food 殺死bacteria 所以會減緩食物敗壞
但是也會使流失許多養分

Proponent's View: irradiation & cooking比較起來 cooking導致更多養分流失


However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

粗體字 表前面講的論體 Proponet's View irrelevant~無相干

因為 (C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

cooking= final step in preparing food for consumption
irradiation=ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

兩者作用不同無法比較...


這題真複雜~~~~~~~~~!! 不知道耶 OG裡都沒有類似的題目

[吳志道]

答案是E ㄅ ^^"
稍微解釋一下 ^^"
你贊成微波比較好的人在一各方面是有誤差的
除非你用生食微波 , 否則你的破壞效果是兩倍 煮+微波

[Grace]

This is an excellent explanation. Now I understand why it says "misleading".
Good job. Mr. Wu! :P

[micht]

我貼一下cd人家討論的


mindfree

I choose C, which points out that comparing irradiation and cooking is misleading.

I do not pick A because it does not make the argument misleading. Even if the proponents are gaining from irradiation, their argument can still hold, as long as it is valid. Just like I am selling BMW and I claim that BMW is better than Audi in quality. Even though I could profit from my argument, if my point is valid, it is not misleading.

I do not pick E because I do not see how E makes the conclusion misleading. If the conclusion is that cooking irradiated food will only lose double the amount of VB1, E is right. The conclusion here is that irradiation is no worse than cooking. E could not counter either the argument or the conclusion.

I do not have the final answer. Personal opinion open to argument.

robertchu

The author of the passage contends that “(irradiation) lowers the nutritional value”. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect [the respect of lowering the nutritional value] than cooking. In arguing for their position, the proponents cite one fact (irradiation is no worse than cooking – when compared separately), and “conveniently” omits another fact (irradiation and cooking used together cause double nutritional loss). So, the mentioning of only the first fact is misleading.




C points out that irradiation and cooking are at different stage of food processing and serve different purpose, but the difference alone does not weaken much the proponent’s argument, thus, it does not potently point out how the proponents’ argument is misleading.




Open to discussion.

mariezhu

偶也選E來著,不解中..

說說我的想法:其實C和E思路基本相同,只差往前走一步

beside the point:需要生吃的時候根本不需radiation---VB1本來就不應損失,所以beside the point

misleading:需要煮熟的時候, 大家會被誤導認為radiation損失小,但是實際上VB1損失不能只考慮radiation,還要加上cooking (V loss during radiation<storage of food> + V loss during cooking<preparation of food for consumption>)

mindfree

I stick to C. Since the argument is about "irradiation is no worse than cooking", C points out that these two are not comparable in the first place.

E is not relevant unless the argument is about something else, such sd "the VB that irradiation removes/destroys is exactly the amount that human being will not be able to absorb and therefore irradiation does not cause nutrition loss"

I was leaning towards E at first. E does look like a typical GMAT answer

fair_sword

設Irradiation 降低nutrition value 4, cooking 降低 nutrition value 5.

Proponents of irradition的 evidence是：in this respect(通過比較irradiation,和cooking) 結論：no worse than cooking

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

對於any food that is both irradiated and cooked. the reduction of vitamin B1必然是4+5,可這並不能反駁Proponents of irradition的evidence.就不能指出misleading.我一直認為E是無關選項
而C:通過指出Proponents of irradition的evidence.中irradition 和cooking不具備可比性。就指出了misleading.

Open to discussion

tianwan

I firmly stick to E. The proponent of irridation states that cooking destroys Vb more than irridation does. The reasoning of the proponent is that cooking destroys Vb but cooking is OK , so irridation is OK.

C doesn't weaken this reasoning. E points out irridaion will double the damage on Vb of cooking, thus irridaion is not OK if cooking is a must-be. So, E points out that the proponents are misleading

LES

偶也選E。

本文作者的觀點是食物輻射會降低許多食物的營養價值。

而支持食物輻射的人反駁：就降低維他命B1來講，輻射並不比煮食物更糟糕。


作者又說，這個實事是離題的：

因為很多食物並不需要煮來吃。（意思是一種情況根本不會發生，所以沒有可比性）。


作者繼續說，或者這個實事是誤導的：

c: 煮食物通常是食物吃之前的最后一步加工過程（暗含的意思是不可避免的一步），

而輻射只是為了更長的保存食物。(暗含的意思是可以省略的一步，那麼跟上面離題的說法是不是一樣？兩種情況並不是一定要發生的，所以沒有可比性。－跑題？）


e. 同時輻射和煮食物，使流失的B1加倍。(指出即使輻射並不比煮食物使B1流失更厲害，但是有了它會加重流失。簡化之，A不比B糟，不代表說A就應該使用。）


請NN指正。謝謝！

rhod

C.

C的意思是cooking是准备吃东西之前的一个通常的步骤, 而irraidiation只是为了把食物保存的时间长一些, 两者的目的和用途都不一样, 所以misleading.

[micht]

shuoshuqi

我認為最關鍵的問題就是misleading
如果如C所說 cooking和 irradiation 不是一個過程

那麼討論這個本身就是misleading, 那麼第一個論點"beside the point"也根本不用提，因為只要討論這兩個不同TYPE 的東西，本身就是 misleading
我認為作者的觀點的前提都是特指需要irradiated 的food
1.不需要cooking的irradiated food ——beside the point
2. 需要cooking的irradiated food ----misleading(因為whether cooking is worse than irradiation,兩者綜合的效果更嚴重）

所以我同意 E

cranberry

還是支持c。

什麼是misleading?誤導應該是不正確地使用某些事實，而絕對不是事實本身不正確。如c所說，如果某些食物的最終是要通過煮熟來吃的，那麼即使煮熟的過程和微波防腐對某些營養成分的損害是一樣的，那麼也不能因此就支持選擇微波，因為在這個範疇底下，食物的煮熟是不可避免的，因此這個損失也是不可選擇的，而微波則並非一定要採用的方式，所以以此為由，是誤導了大家。而e，且不說其限定了討論的範疇，就其所說微波和烹飪造成的損失是復合的，那麼其含義是說微波也造成了損失，但不能削弱微波造成的損失。微波支持者的意思是既然人們都用同樣有害的烹飪，為什麼不能使用可能害處不那麼大的微波呢？要說明它的誤導，c是最清晰的。

exan

I support E.

原來我也選了C，但是現在覺得E才是正確的。

最重要明白misleading的含義

首先根據either...or...的關系，misleading是within the point---destory B，所以irradiation和cooking的不同用途（C）是beside the point.

所以misleading可以理解為兩個層面的意思

1. 單獨考查irradiation和cooking ，其實irradiation 比 cooking 損失小，所以misleading

從這個層面來看，C和E都沒有解釋。其實最合適的解釋應該是irradiation of uncooked food 與 cooking of nonirradiation food比較，看究竟哪個損失小。所以原文並不是指這個層面的意思。

2. “單獨考查irradiation和cooking”這種思維是misleading，不管irradiation比cooking損失的多還是少，把二者割裂開來本身就是一種misleading。

從這個層面來看，C說cooking是最后一步，但並沒有說food究竟有沒有irradiate過；但是E明確的說irradiate+cook，損失是compound，即irradiation 損失+ cooking損失。

流沙

開始非常堅定的選e，覺得從語法結構上來講，e非常的完美對稱。但是后來再仔細看題目，覺得e不能算是misleading。c說明兩者根本不能比較，用來表達misleading更為合適。

救郎歐~~~~到底是C or E??

[Behemoth]

去cd上查了查他們的分數...
這根本就是大牛大戰嘛!!!!!

節錄一下...

790 mindfree---c
780 tianwan---e
770 roberchu---c
760 cranberry--c
750 rhod---c
740 流沙---e

瘋掉了.....

不過從大牛意見中得出似乎c佔大多數

[bear]

去cd上查了查他們的分數...
這根本就是大牛大戰嘛!!!!!

節錄一下...

790 mindfree---c
780 tianwan---e
770 roberchu---c
760 cranberry--c
750 rhod---c
740 流沙---e

瘋掉了.....

不過從大牛意見中得出似乎c佔大多數

附加一各....
台灣770大牛--e

我個人ㄚ~~~比較傾向答案C....在看完lawyer的解答後....
雖然E有人說粉像ETS慣用的答案.....

[QQcandy]

厚....那個考 790 的是人嗎 ? 根本就是神 ~~~~

我這隻小羊選 E :P

[micht]

關於這一題

有沒有人可以去問江璞 or 黃冠文 他們兩人的答案是否一致

大牛們都各自堅持自己的想法 ~~ 難喔

[魚]

C

E偏離題目重心了

[訪客]

我怎麼覺得E也很有道理阿
還沒討論出來
繼續推

[訪客]

我覺得是Cㄝ. irradiation是一種食物的保存法但是cook是烹煮 ,2者根本不是在同一個基準 , 所以misleading不能比較 :o

[James]

糟糕，漏問了這題，本來要來講講問回來的結果的，下星期再去問

[James]

已確認答案是E



Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. (下句說本句不是偏離了焦點就是誤導)
However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
食物經過微波及煮，維他命B1將會加倍流失，否定了微波支持者所說：微波不會更糟。
C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
煮是最後一道程序，這件事與原題無關，不能自己在答案沒講的部分多假設煮了後會怎樣，這邊的"會怎樣"是你自己想的而非題目及答案說的。