The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 00:03

### 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

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 97
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 91 [6] , given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 14:04
6
KUDOS
62
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:20) correct 52% (01:47) wrong based on 2696 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
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [11] , given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 05:46
11
KUDOS
3
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 356 [10] , given: 18

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 07:48
10
KUDOS
God Save us!!!!! Dont give this type of ques in Gmat
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [10] , given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 17:03
10
KUDOS
2
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.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 310 [6] , given: 106

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 02:53
6
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 ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7119
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2132

Kudos [?]: 13632 [5] , given: 222

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 20:44
5
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 Senior Manager Joined: 21 Jul 2009 Posts: 265 Location: New York, NY Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 108 [2] , given: 23 Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 24 Sep 2009, 20:54 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... Intern Joined: 02 May 2011 Posts: 39 Location: Canada Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V33 GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40 GPA: 3.78 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 25 [2] , given: 55 Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 10 Aug 2012, 15:03 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. Director Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 954 WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain Followers: 76 Kudos [?]: 1270 [1] , given: 40 Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 15 May 2010, 03:09 1 This post received KUDOS Jesus, This is from Alpha centuary and based on 4th dimension. _________________ Want to improve your CR: http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html Intern Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 29 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 5 Re: CR: Irradiation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 13 Aug 2011, 18:26 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 ? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7119 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2132 Kudos [?]: 13632 [1] , given: 222 Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards [#permalink] ### Show Tags 18 Aug 2015, 00:03 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
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 8
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.94
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 29

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 20:34
1
KUDOS
I think focus must be on last line . It refutes the claim of proponents of irradiated food based on the ground that it is as bad as cooked food on two grounds. First , there is no point in comparison because most of the irradiated food is meant to be cooked as it is generally eaten raw....thus besides the point.... Second if we do have some food which is also cooked then the proponents are misleading people because then it is not same but as choice E tells the affect is much more ...compounded...Thus with E authors opposition to proponents of irradiated food gets satisfactorily explained.

I too initially got it wrong and in time limited try marked C...However on careful thought this is my analysis in support of correct answer... Now all choices look insufficient other than E.
Current Student
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '17 (A), IIMA (A)
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 00:42
IMO D

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
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 356 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 01:00
IMO C
Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 06:45
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
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 10:06
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

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

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

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 17:21
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
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 356 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 07:19
well this is the third time i m doing this and this time its definately D for me.......PLs share the OA
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 07:36
I scanned through the OG 12 Book and found it

Q 99 - OA is E

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

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2009, 10:23
Thanks for the reply post. The OA is indeed E.

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 64 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf 5 09 Feb 2015, 09:54
1 Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plas 2 22 Nov 2014, 05:32
1 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 1 15 Feb 2013, 10:48
9 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 11 02 May 2012, 21:32
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 5 09 Apr 2007, 22:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by