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 _______.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

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

I too had a hard time understanding it, but after multiple posts and crossing of thoughts, I feel this is the best answer.

Understand this

Proponents say - Irradiated is no worse than cooking. that means, "if" irradiated ( and not cooked ) it will reduce the amount of vitamins from food, and thereby do what normal cooking does to the food.

The option says, "WHAT IF IRRADIATED FOOD HAS TO BE COOKED" ?

DO WE COOK FOOD TWICE TO EAT IT ? NO !

then why should we irradiate and then cook it, if they are doing the same purpose ?

therefore the proponents are missing this valid point where irradiated food has to be cooked as well

therefore irradiation is NOT SIMILAR to cooking. It is a process, which may or may not require cooking.

Case 1 : doesnt require cooking -- beside the point, coz proponents say it is similar to cooking
Case 2 : requires cooking -- misleading coz it will reduce the food even more than "COOKING ALONE" would have done.

Makes sense ?

IMO C

IMO C

It completes the argument because it shows why the statement is misleading. Cooking and irradiation are separate processes that are not used for the same purpose.

Any OA for this?

hard one between C and E, picked E because:

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 -only says cooking is last step where as irradiation is to ensure longer shelf life, but DOES NOT suggest anything might be related or not related......only facts that are not connected at all....close but not the answer
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 - Picking E because the passage says it as if irradiated food's vitamin B1 value can't be lowered further...which is totally untrue. thus E.

I scanned through the OG 12 Book and found it

Q 99 - OA is E

Does a poor job of explaining why.

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

IMO - E

We need to complete the last senetnce is - "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is ten raw, or else misleading, since _______."


What is the Fact here? Fact is Irriadiation is no worse than cooking. Cooking destroys the Vitamin B1. Irriadiation also destroys VB1. Conslusion made is Irriadation is no worse than cooking. By taking this conclusion a customer should think that if irriadation is done then there is NO issue and customer should buy irridiated food.

So as per the last sentence if irridiated food is eaten Raw then it will have less VB1 but it is still ok because after cooking also some VB is reduced. So if you eat raw irridated food then it is fine, OTHERWISE you are misleaded because after cooking you have VB1 reduced by irridiated and VB2 recuded by cooking. So irridation is making food more worse after cooking.

Thanks for the reply post. The OA is indeed E.

I remember this question, I got it right. The answer is E.
_________________

Believe in yourself.

Jesus,

This is from Alpha centuary and based on 4th dimension.
_________________

Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html