hce_cmu
115年
英文
第 19 題
📖 題組：
In public discussions of nutrition, fortified foods are often presented as a straightforward solution to micronutrient deficiency. Adding iron to flour or vitamin D to milk can indeed improve population health, especially when vulnerable groups have limited access to diverse diets. Yet the logic of fortification becomes less simple when foods are also highly processed, aggressively marketed, and consumed in quantities far beyond what nutrition planners anticipated. A breakfast cereal may be 16 enriched with vitamins, but its overall contribution to health depends on sugar content, fiber structure, and how it displaces other foods in the diet. 17 nutrient labels invite consumers to evaluate foods item by item, metabolic effects emerge from dietary patterns over time. Recent research on the gut microbiome reinforces this broader view. Fibers that appear chemically similar may 18 different microbial responses because their physical matrix determines how bacteria access them. Consequently, nutrition policy cannot rely exclusively on isolated nutrient counts. It must also consider food processing, affordability, cultural habits, and the commercial incentives that shape choice. This does not mean fortified products should be rejected; in settings where deficiency remains widespread, they may be indispensable. The more defensible position is that fortification should be treated as a targeted public-health tool, 19 as a license to market nutritionally imbalanced products as wholesome. If policymakers ignore this distinction, a technically fortified intervention may even 20 the very dietary transition associated with chronic disease.
In public discussions of nutrition, fortified foods are often presented as a straightforward solution to micronutrient deficiency. Adding iron to flour or vitamin D to milk can indeed improve population health, especially when vulnerable groups have limited access to diverse diets. Yet the logic of fortification becomes less simple when foods are also highly processed, aggressively marketed, and consumed in quantities far beyond what nutrition planners anticipated. A breakfast cereal may be 16 enriched with vitamins, but its overall contribution to health depends on sugar content, fiber structure, and how it displaces other foods in the diet. 17 nutrient labels invite consumers to evaluate foods item by item, metabolic effects emerge from dietary patterns over time. Recent research on the gut microbiome reinforces this broader view. Fibers that appear chemically similar may 18 different microbial responses because their physical matrix determines how bacteria access them. Consequently, nutrition policy cannot rely exclusively on isolated nutrient counts. It must also consider food processing, affordability, cultural habits, and the commercial incentives that shape choice. This does not mean fortified products should be rejected; in settings where deficiency remains widespread, they may be indispensable. The more defensible position is that fortification should be treated as a targeted public-health tool, 19 as a license to market nutritionally imbalanced products as wholesome. If policymakers ignore this distinction, a technically fortified intervention may even 20 the very dietary transition associated with chronic disease.
19.
- A as much as
- B in addition to
- C owing to
- D instead of
思路引導 VIP
請觀察空格前後這兩個描述：前者將其形容為「精準的公衛工具」，後者則是「行銷失衡產品的許可證」。根據作者在文中對加工食品與糖分的批評態度，你認為作者會希望這兩者「同時並存」，還是「以後者取代前者」，或者是「認可前者、否定後者」呢？哪種邏輯關係最符合這種批判性的觀點？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
語境對照與邏輯選擇
同學做得好！你能精準判斷出這裡需要一個表示「對比」或「排除」的銜接詞，這顯示你對文章作者的立場與語氣掌握得很到位。在本段中，作者先將營養強化（fortification）定義為一種「精準的公共衛生工具（targeted public-health tool）」，隨後提到「將營養失衡產品行銷為健康產品的許可（license）」。這兩者在作者眼中是互斥的關係：前者是理想的用途，後者則是應該避免的誤用。因此，選用 instead of（而非）來連結這兩個對立概念，在邏輯上最為通順。
難度評估與文意切入點
▼ 還有更多解析內容