Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 24 Oct 2016, 09:19

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 35
Location: India
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [1] , given: 18

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 22:32
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:23) correct 50% (01:53) wrong based on 387 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Please think out loud and share your strategies/approach... Previous posts were not of much help...

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
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process
individually is compounded
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Kudos if you like the post!!!

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1081
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Followers: 113

Kudos [?]: 504 [3] , given: 18

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 23:29
3
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The stimulus says that the fact that irradiation is no worse than cooking can be misleading because......

You must choose the answer choice here that explains why irradiation can in fact be worse than cooking alone.

(A) This has no relation to cooking at all - Irrelevant.
(B) Even if irradiation has effects other than killing bacteria in food, those effects may be positive or negative. In either case, this does not represent a misleading statement and again has no relation to cooking - Irrelevant
(C) Even if cooking is used only to prepare foods and irradiation only to preserve them, this does not represent a misleading fact, because it is still possible that the effects of irradiation are still not as harmful as those of cooking - Incorrect
(D) If certain kinds of cooking is more destructive, it supports the assertion that irradiation is no worse than cooking, and can therefore not be misleading - Incorrect
(E) If the harmful effects of either process are compounded, then saying that irradiation is no worse than cooking is indeed a misleading statement, because it misleads us into believing that the effect of irradiation on food is no worse than the effect of cooking on food, which goes against this fact. - CORRECT

(E) is therefore the correct choice.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2013
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2013, 17:19
Pl mention it as a GMAT Prep Question.
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 52
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2014, 22:28
This was a tough one for me. I went for C.
Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2014, 03:48
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????
Manager
Status: GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: EnterMBA.in
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 182
Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 20:41
The irradiated food is eaten either raw or cooked. In the former case, irradiation cannot be compared to cooking, so the author says that the comparison is beside the point. But in the latter case, the cooked and irradiated food suffers a greater loss of b1.

The author doesn't say the proponents are wrong, just that their statement is misleading, because someone could think that one could combine both the processes without producing a greater net loss of b1. So, in the (common) case of cooking food, irradiating it will accentuate the losses.
_________________

EnterMBA

Senior Manager
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 268
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 217 [1] , given: 5

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 22:40
1
KUDOS
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo
_________________

Do you find yourself struggling with questions on Permutations and Combinations? Attend this webinar to learn quick and non-formulae approach to counting methods! Register here: https://goo.gl/kJ7na7

Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2014, 10:39
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi.. This is OG 12 question. Thanks for your response.
May be I am thinking from a different angle. What I am trying to say is as follows:-

proponents say - "irradiation is no worse than cooking" By this they mean that take 2 samples of same food. Irradiate sample A, cook sample B. Irradiation will make lose nutrients less than or equal to the nutrients that cooking destroys. So irradiation is no worse.

Now E suggests that say Sample A was irradiated, and has lost nutrients. Cooking the same sample further will destroy more nutrients.
Similarly sample B was cooked. Irradiating it further will destroy more nutrients. Hence it is somewhat supporting the proponents..

Is it that my understanding of the premise is wrong? May be my style of thinking (my lack of knowledge) .... I was thinking that even cooked food can be radiated? I don't know!! Am I not thinking correctly?
Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 06-14-2014
GPA: 4
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2014, 01:07
However, is probably the most important word here?
From here i started treating this more of a weaken question, with the aim to weaken Proponents theory, that is the only possible way to justify the However..
A. Is out of scope
B. May be, save for later
C. we have to prove that irradiation is better than cooking , this doesn't help
D. strengthens Proponents theory
E. may be

Comparing b and e.
B. effects can be either positive or negative, it is not clear
E . definitely weakens
Senior Manager
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 268
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2014, 02:18
talismaaniac wrote:
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi.. This is OG 12 question. Thanks for your response.
May be I am thinking from a different angle. What I am trying to say is as follows:-

proponents say - "irradiation is no worse than cooking" By this they mean that take 2 samples of same food. Irradiate sample A, cook sample B. Irradiation will make lose nutrients less than or equal to the nutrients that cooking destroys. So irradiation is no worse.

Now E suggests that say Sample A was irradiated, and has lost nutrients. Cooking the same sample further will destroy more nutrients.
Similarly sample B was cooked. Irradiating it further will destroy more nutrients. Hence it is somewhat supporting the proponents..

Is it that my understanding of the premise is wrong? May be my style of thinking (my lack of knowledge) .... I was thinking that even cooked food can be radiated? I don't know!! Am I not thinking correctly?

Hey,
Let me explain this with an example argument.

Group A: Irradiation is no worse than cooking in the respect that it reduces nutrients.
Now the problem here is that irradiation serves a purpose that cooking might go beyond. (irradiation doesn't cook food).

so Group B says: Hold on; firstly raw consumable food will not be cooked, so this comparison makes no sense in this case.
Secondly; If you are going to irradiate food that is cooked, you lose nutrients when you cook and lose further more nutrients when you irradiate them!

Therefore making this comparison is misleading (because it makes it seem like irradiating food is an alternative to cooking food - which it is not!)

Hope that clarifies things!
Peo
_________________

Do you find yourself struggling with questions on Permutations and Combinations? Attend this webinar to learn quick and non-formulae approach to counting methods! Register here: https://goo.gl/kJ7na7

Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2014, 00:05
Hey,
Let me explain this with an example argument.

Group A: Irradiation is no worse than cooking in the respect that it reduces nutrients.
Now the problem here is that irradiation serves a purpose that cooking might go beyond. (irradiation doesn't cook food).

so Group B says: Hold on; firstly raw consumable food will not be cooked, so this comparison makes no sense in this case.
Secondly; If you are going to irradiate food that is cooked, you lose nutrients when you cook and lose further more nutrients when you irradiate them!

Therefore making this comparison is misleading (because it makes it seem like irradiating food is an alternative to cooking food - which it is not!)

Hope that clarifies things!
Peo[/quote]

Thanks buddy! I think I am not getting most of what you have written! You tried, but may be my mind is acting a little stubborn lol!
Thanks anyway! let us not irradiate this further,,
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10257
Followers: 856

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2016, 04:59
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards   [#permalink] 19 Jul 2016, 04:59
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf 5 09 Feb 2015, 10:54
1 Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plas 2 22 Nov 2014, 06:32
1 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 1 15 Feb 2013, 11:48
107 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 61 23 Aug 2009, 15:04
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 5 09 Apr 2007, 23:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by