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

It is currently 28 Jun 2016, 05:00
GMAT Club Tests

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

8 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 97
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 54 [8] , given: 0

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Aug 2009, 15:04
8
This post received
KUDOS
27
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:23) correct 52% (01:43) wrong based on 2028 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
8 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [8] , given: 0

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 18:03
8
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
8 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [8] , given: 0

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2009, 06:46
8
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Don't overlook the word "misleading". The stimulus says that irradiation does not deplete the food of Vit B1 anymore than what cooking does. Okay, but what if the irradiated food is supposed to be cooked and not eaten raw? E says that depletion of Vit. B1 increases as the effect of irradiation and cooking on Vit B1 is additive. This implies that irradiation of food that needs to be cooked makes Vit B1 lower than just irradiated food or just cooked food. So, irradiating certain kinds of foods could make matters worse for Vit B1.
Hence, E it is.
6 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 243 [6] , given: 18

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 08:48
6
This post received
KUDOS
God Save us!!!!! Dont give this type of ques in Gmat
4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 850
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 263 [4] , given: 106

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 03:53
4
This post received
KUDOS
here there is a need to prove that argument "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is misleading.

3 foods: (there could be more but that would be out of scope)

radiated + not cooked(raw) - covered in "this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
only cooked - (not relevant I think in this context, as effect of radiation can't be estimated or compared.
radiated + cooking - This is the one we need to look into as in option E.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 6677
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1831

Kudos [?]: 11143 [3] , given: 219

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2014, 21:44
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
TriColor wrote:
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



Whenever an argument presents two sides, think of it as an ongoing debate. First the Pro side puts forward its arguments. Then the against side points out weaknesses or puts forward counter arguments. Option (E) fits perfectly into the argument.

Proponents of irradiation: Irradiation has effects similar to cooking. It is as bad as cooking is (which to most people is acceptable). You lose nutrients in cooking just as you lose them in irradiation. Hence, don't be concerned about irradiation. You would have anyway cooked the food and hence the vitamin would have been lost.

Author's counter argument (starts with However): This fact (the fact that irradiation is just like cooking) is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw (which means that we would not have cooked that food and hence the nutrients would not have been lost. They are lost because of irradiation), or else misleading, since _______.
for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
(which means that the food that is cooked after irradiation loses even more nutrients than food that is only cooked)

Hence the author is saying that irradiation is bad and we need to be concerned.

The other options do not make sense with this argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 265
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 82 [2] , given: 23

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2009, 21:54
2
This post received
KUDOS
I got E on my first try.

D is wrong because it actually supports the proponent of irradiation. The author is trying to say that the proponents are giving misleading info.

C is weak, but I understand why people chose it.

E completes the line of logic. For food which is not cooked, such as apples, what excuse do they have to kill the vitamins with irradiation. For food that is cooked, the problem is that you're double-tasing the vitamins...
2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 37
Location: Canada
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [2] , given: 55

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2012, 16:03
2
This post received
KUDOS
TriColor wrote:
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

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


There is already a lot of discussion here on what the correct answer is, so I won't go into that. I also originally got "C" even though it was wrong. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out WHY I made the mistake and what was it about the question that misdirected me so much. There have been far too many times that I've just forced an explanation down my throat when I got a question wrong. The result? The lesson doesn't stick when I re-do the question, and it doesn't help me apply the lessons to other questions. Here are my thoughts and lessons from this question; I hope they help others see a more natural way of seeing the right answer.

"Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is..."

Ah! Upon much reflection, this is what I missed. In CR passages, we're almost always trying to find the conclusion. In this case we have the anti-conclusion...the central point that we are trying to dispute. I really needed to think about this fact deeply to see the "natural" reason why 'E' is the right answer.

The anti-conclusion that we want to dispute is: "Irradiation is no worse than cooking."

Basically, we do not like the comparison that's drawn there. It implies that irradiation is the same as cooking or maybe even better than cooking!

We want to say no! This is not true! We're therefore only left with options C & E.

Option C is in many ways just an expansion of the first sentence:
"The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage"..."irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods." So it doesn't add much to the argument. And besides, is this what the author is really trying to dispute here? No! The author wants to dispute the unequal comparison between irradiation and cooking with respect to how it lowers the nutritional value of the food.

Therefore C cannot be the right answer! We are left with E. And "E" is indeed the correct answer because it properly does help us understand why irradiation and cooking are NOT the same thing with respect to lowering of the nutritional value (although not perfectly, but we are not looking for a perfect answer).

The key takeaway
Understanding the argument thoroughly is the most important thing to do. Mindlessly jumping to the answer choices with just the hope of arriving at the right answer choice might get us through sometimes, but as we prepare for the test, this focus on proper understanding will help us go a longer way.
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 71

Kudos [?]: 1098 [1] , given: 40

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2010, 04:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
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

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 29
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 5

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2011, 19:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
billnepill wrote:
TriColor wrote:
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

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


I don't understand how the compounded reduction of vitamin B1 done by both processes makes the argument by the proponents of irradiation misleading.

Proponents point out :
Quote:
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.


It might be the case that irradiation reduces B1 levels by 10 % and cooking by 50 % totaling 60 % reduction. That would mean, proponents are right. Irradiation isn't worse than cooking.
The author seems to accept the possibility that proponents would have to be implying that there is no additional reduction of vitamin B1 when products undergo both processes. In other words, the harm done by irradiation, would not be significant since cooking will do much more. Hence, their argument is misleading.

However, there are no grounds for this reasoning of the author, since arguments about both irradiated and cooked products weren't made by the proponents. Furthermore, as the author pointed out, much of the irradiated food is eaten raw, making the possibility of
Quote:
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
to be misleading quite improbable.

Gosh, I sound like a proponent of irradiation because of this question! :D


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 ?
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 6677
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1831

Kudos [?]: 11143 [1] , given: 219

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2015, 01:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
RaviChandra wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma your solution is the only solution that made sense to me.

Im still left with one Question .

Our Aim in this question is to Negate this. "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"

All the explanations (and even my thought process) were trying to say Cooking doesn't reduce the vitamins in the food. Its only your solution that says - Cooking also reduces the vitamins , but Irradiation is still worse.

Because its either Irradiated and eaten Raw or Irradiated + cooked. - great totally makes sense.



My Question comes here.

Irradiated food eaten Raw Vs Cooked Food. : with Our analysis we know both reduce vitamins. So does that mean for atleast few scenarios both reduce vitamins , so irradiated food is no worse than cooked food (for this scenario) ?


Yes that is correct but note that the author is comparing irradiated food with food that is not irradiated. He is against irradiation and we have to find the option that suits his opinion. He says that irradiation being no worse than cooking is EITHER beside the point because we would not have cooked that food anyway (e.g. apples - we eat them raw. If we irradiate them, their nutrition value decreases and hence irradiation is bad) OR misleading because we still cook after irradiation (e.g. brinjal - cooking reduces nutrition but irradiation + cooking reduces even more nutrition). So the author is saying that in any case, irradiation is bad.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '17 (A), IIMA (A)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 65

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 01:42
IMO D

Not A becuase the paragraph is about irradiation and not proponents.

Not B because the last statement is trying to underline the fact that irradiation doesn't really matter whereas, B brings forth more negative aspects of irradiation.

Not C - Same as above but in this case, C mentions a positive fact about irradiation

D because this point states the irradiation is the lesser of two evils.

Not E bacause it's not about both irrdiation and cooking together but about either irradiation or cooking

Hope I'm not wrong :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 243 [0], given: 18

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 02:00
IMO C
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 07:45
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?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 11:06
IMO C

However, indicates a dispute to the fact "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"
We need to weaken the argument.

A - not relevant to facts
B - elimination of bacteria seems to be the only reason of irradiation
D - strengthens the argument
E - about both cooking and irradiation neither weakens or strengthens.

C - weakens the argument by showing the two processes are not comparable (apples and oranges)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 18:21
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 243 [0], given: 18

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 08:19
well this is the third time i m doing this and this time its definately D for me.......PLs share the OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 08:36
I scanned through the OG 12 Book and found it

Q 99 - OA is E

Does a poor job of explaining why.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 97
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2009, 11:23
Thanks for the reply post. The OA is indeed E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 119
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2009, 20:11
rkassal wrote:
Don't overlook the word "misleading". The stimulus says that irradiation does not deplete the food of Vit B1 anymore than what cooking does. Okay, but what if the irradiated food is supposed to be cooked and not eaten raw? E says that depletion of Vit. B1 increases as the effect of irradiation and cooking on Vit B1 is additive. This implies that irradiation of food that needs to be cooked makes Vit B1 lower than just irradiated food or just cooked food. So, irradiating certain kinds of foods could make matters worse for Vit B1.
Hence, E it is.


Great explanation rkassal! This is a difficult one!
Re: CR: Irradiation   [#permalink] 30 Aug 2009, 20:11

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 62 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf BrainLab 4 09 Feb 2015, 10:54
1 Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plas Gmat1008 2 22 Nov 2014, 06:32
1 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards ratinarace 1 15 Feb 2013, 11:48
5 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards devpanda 10 02 May 2012, 22:32
CR - Irradiation of Foods. dvtohir 5 09 Apr 2007, 23:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.