请教各路隐士高人系统一道OG12里CR部分99题

来源：蜘蛛抓取(WebSpider) 时间：2017-07-27 06:55 标签： 汶川地震国家请了高人
502 Bad Gateway
502 Bad Gateway
nginx/1.10.1后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 7037|回复: 16
在线时间 小时
97. Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provide level of output is held constant. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?答案选B. The first provides support for the conclu the second identifies the content of that conclusion. 我能够理解对第二句的解释，即the second identifies the content of that conclusion. 但第一句就是描述了一个事件，怎么provides support for the conclusion of the argument了？99. 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 values 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________.答案选E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded. 俺就是搞不明白这里面的逻辑关系，尤其是最后这句However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading since________，以及尤其最后这一部分or else misleading since________.支持者提出的是irradiation不比cooking更损失vitamin B1。那么生吃的食物自然跟支持者提出的东西没什么关系，因为不用cooking，也可以理解irradiation会让生的食物损失vitamin B1。那么要cooking的食物呢，支持者提出的怎么就misleading了？
在线时间 小时
97 &The first BF is the premise of the argument. &A premise is the foundation for the conclusion to build on. Thus it provides support to the conclusion.99 &There are two voices here. &One is the proponents of irradiation. &The other is the author. &The author says &However, this fact (that irradiation is no worse than cooking in terms of destroying vitamin B1) is either beside the point or else misleading.&It is misleading because if you want to cook the food in the end, irradiating the food before cooking would destroy more vitamin B1 than not irradiating the food, especially when B is right.
在线时间 小时
谢谢大侠！97题明白了，99题也许明白啦！
在线时间 小时
食物有两种，一种生吃，一种熟吃。对于那些生吃的，用辐射肯定会使营养流失，与烹饪相比较没有任何意义，因为这本来就是生吃，不进行辐射也得生着吃；另一种，是熟吃，不管你用不用辐射，你都要烹饪它，所以辐射肯定比不辐射有害的多。总体来说，反驳了文中看似合理，其实比较对象错误的现象。不能拿辐射和烹饪相比较，他们不是同类的。你拿炒着吃和煮着吃可以比较，因为两种做菜方法可以替换，而辐射和烹饪怎么能替换？举个例子，猪肉可以炒、也可以煮，但是，肉可以烹饪着吃，也可以生着吃么？那不成原始人了么。。。
在线时间 小时
今天又在GWD上做到了，二话不说就选对了，呵呵
在线时间 小时
感谢楼主的提问，我也明白了
感谢楼主的提问，我也明白了
在线时间 小时
突然觉得这道题很典型的思维可以这样表达：原文：A&B,
E选项：A+B=2A or 2B→A&B不成立（A指辐射，B指烹饪）
在线时间 小时
食物有两种，一种生吃，一种熟吃。对于那些生吃的，用辐射肯定会使营养流失，与烹饪相比较没有任何意义，因为这本来就是生吃，不进行辐射也得生着吃；另一种，是熟吃，不管你用不用辐射，你都要烹饪它，所以辐射肯定比不辐射有害的多。总体来说，反驳了文中看似合理，其实比较对象错误的现象。不能拿辐射和烹饪相比较，他们不是同类的。你拿炒着吃和煮着吃可以比较，因为两种做菜方法可以替换，而辐射和烹饪怎么能替换？举个例子，猪肉可以炒、也可以煮，但是，肉可以烹饪着吃，也可以生着吃么？那不成原始人了么。。。-- by 会员
( 15:33:36)
精彩！理解了！！
在线时间 小时
食物有两种，一种生吃，一种熟吃。对于那些生吃的，用辐射肯定会使营养流失，与烹饪相比较没有任何意义，因为这本来就是生吃，不进行辐射也得生着吃；另一种，是熟吃，不管你用不用辐射，你都要烹饪它，所以辐射肯定比不辐射有害的多。总体来说，反驳了文中看似合理，其实比较对象错误的现象。不能拿辐射和烹饪相比较，他们不是同类的。你拿炒着吃和煮着吃可以比较，因为两种做菜方法可以替换，而辐射和烹饪怎么能替换？举个例子，猪肉可以炒、也可以煮，但是，肉可以烹饪着吃，也可以生着吃么？那不成原始人了么。。。-- by 会员
( 15:33:36)
精彩！理解了！！-- by 会员 爱吃巧克力 ( 23:53:44)
In fact, what
explained is beside the point since it did not explain the COMPOUNDING effect, which is missed by the proponent of irradiation. The question has nothing to do with EXCHANGING or COMPARING the way to cook the food.
在线时间 小时
99 &There are two voices here. &One is the proponents of irradiation. &The other is the author. &The author says &However, this fact (that irradiation is no worse than cooking in terms of destroying vitamin B1) is either beside the point or else misleading.&It is misleading because if you want to cook the food in the end, irradiating the food before cooking would destroy more vitamin B1 than not irradiating the food, especially when B is right.-- by 会员 sdcar2010 ( 12:34:31)[/quote]比较笨不理解对misleading的解释，辐射食物是生吃的，是反对proponent的观点吗？怎么反对？纠结中~~
所属分类: GMAT考试
正在浏览此版块的会员 ()
ChaseDream 论坛
All Rights Reserved.502 Bad Gateway
502 Bad Gateway
nginx/1.10.1502 Bad Gateway
502 Bad Gateway
nginx/1.10.1

我要回帖

更多关于 汶川地震国家请了高人 的文章

 

随机推荐