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

It is currently 22 Jul 2014, 20:13

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 35
Location: India
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [1] , given: 18

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 21:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

44% (02:22) correct 56% (01:52) wrong based on 206 sessions
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
irradiation is
(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!!!

Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesGMAT Pill GMAT Discount Codes
3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Status:
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 547
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 261 [3] , given: 11

Re: Irradiation of food [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 22:29
3
This post received
KUDOS
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 | http://www.GyanOne.com | +91 9899831738

Get a free detailed MBA profile evaluation

Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions blog


Image

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

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 19

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2013, 16:19
Pl mention it as a GMAT Prep Question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 52
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 10

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 14 Mar 2014, 21:28
This was a tough one for me. I went for C.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2014, 02:48
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
Manager
User avatar
Status: GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: EnterMBA.in
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 148
Location: India
Prasad: Hariharan
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 4

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2014, 19:41
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.

_________________

GMAT and MBA admissions Coach
EnterMBA

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 149
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 67 [1] , given: 2

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2014, 21:40
1
This post received
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

_________________

If you find our response valuable, please encourage us with Kudos!

Aiming for 40+ in Verbal? Attend our 2-Day Verbal Score Booster Workshop!
http://gmat.crackverbal.com/advanced-verbal-workshop-bangalore

Get a FREE profile evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
http://applications.crackverbal.com/free-resources/profile-evaluation/

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 18 Mar 2014, 09:39
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
Intern
avatar
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: 10

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 19 Mar 2014, 00:07
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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 149
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 2

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 19 Mar 2014, 01:18
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

_________________

If you find our response valuable, please encourage us with Kudos!

Aiming for 40+ in Verbal? Attend our 2-Day Verbal Score Booster Workshop!
http://gmat.crackverbal.com/advanced-verbal-workshop-bangalore

Get a FREE profile evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
http://applications.crackverbal.com/free-resources/profile-evaluation/

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2014, 23:05
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,, :wink:
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards   [#permalink] 24 Mar 2014, 23:05
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards ratinarace 1 15 Feb 2013, 10:48
Experts publish their posts in the topic Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong hitman4683v1 15 14 Oct 2009, 09:46
10 Experts publish their posts in the topic The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards TriColor 39 23 Aug 2009, 14:04
CR - Irradiation of Foods. dvtohir 5 09 Apr 2007, 22:35
Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong rdg 5 01 Mar 2007, 12:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.