|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[1] , given: 0
|
Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]
 16 Feb 2008, 13:19
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
84
[0], given: 0
|
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life [Longer shelf life is not discussed – eliminate it]
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has[Hold it]
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods[Shelf life – eliminate it]
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is [why to deal with cooking - eliminate it]
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded[Argument never mentioned compound affect – eliminate it]
Answer: B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
OA is E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
35
[0], given: 4
|
E makes sense. good one ttram. +1
_________________
-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 0
|
vscid wrote: E makes sense.
good one ttram. +1 I agree. We are looking for the argument that makes the statement "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" misleading. This statement implies that the food you eat that is irradiated will not be worse than cooked food. This is misleading however because the food would lose nutritional value when irradiated and then lose more nutritional value when cooked therefore becomeing worse than food that is just cooked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
