|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]
06 Sep 2012, 14:16
Question Stats:
42% (01:54) correct
57% (01:27) wrong based on 1 sessions
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 By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt: Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong. In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1. Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually. Please, your help.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 574
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 51
Kudos [?]:
129
[1] , given: 2
|
Re: Irradiation of food [#permalink]
06 Sep 2012, 17:02
1
This post received KUDOS
metallicafan wrote: 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
By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt: Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong. In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1. Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.
Please, your help. Hi metallicafan, The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone!
_________________
Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 262
|
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]
11 Sep 2012, 22:30
I am still not clear with the structure. Someone please clear my doubt as in how are we arriving at the answer? Thanks in advance.
_________________
First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 456
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 39
|
Re: Irradiation of food [#permalink]
04 Dec 2012, 03:57
KapTeacherEli wrote: metallicafan wrote: 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
By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt: Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong. In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1. Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.
Please, your help. Hi metallicafan, The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone! Thank you expert, I fail this question because I do not realize the conclusion covered. I do not know what I look for in the answer choices. - conclusion: radiation is good - evidence: radiation only harm as cooking do prethink: look for something which shows that radiation is bad. E match. many questions in gmatprep make us unable to realize the conclusion and we fail soon. do you have any advise for us in this situation. expert?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Irradiation of food
[#permalink]
04 Dec 2012, 03:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|