tough one ... not able to draw anything quick ... but I go with C ...

E for me

doesn't D reiterate what the stimulus says?

"irradiation is no worse than cooking" . This means that the extent of loss of B1 during cooking is more or equal to that during irradiation. This is exactly what D says, isn't it?

I think E is the best option here.

I'll go with C

Conclusion: this fact (namely that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking) is either beside the point or else misleading.

A. description of proponents is out of scope
B. other efects are out of scope, conclusion of the argument is about one effect - lowering the nutritional value of many foods
C.description of cooking and irradiation in the mentiond respect does not refer to issue of conclusion
D. out of scope
E. correct one - because it shows the case when effect of cooking does nor equal to effect of irradiation.

What is the source?

Do you have OE?

Cheers,
Unplugged

Nice question. Here is my understanding...

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
_______.
Proponents say: irradiation = cooking
But fact is:-
above statement is
1) beside the point - WHY?
because: much irradiated food is eaten raw - Ok, so if we are consuming RAW, there will be no point to do such comparison. Hence, indeed beside the point.
2) misleading - WHY?
because:
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
- Not talking why misleading
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
- Not talking why misleading
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
- Not talking why misleading, rather going too far and stating some other aspect
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
- Not talking why misleading. Certain kinds of cooking are horrible but how can that extrapolate the comparison.
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
- E misleads people who cook foods after irradiation. E says that people actually get no nutrition (B1) from those food...
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

IMO E

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 --> irrelevant
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect
that irradiation has --> out of scope
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas
irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods --> irrelevant to the respect of reducing vitamin B1 of each individual process
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than
carefully controlled irradiation is --> weaken the counter-argument of proponent of irradiation
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded -->best choice. The intention of the proponent is that irradiation reduces no more Vitamin B1 than cooking does, or they cause a similar outcome of reducing Vit B1. So, if we want to show that the proponents are misleading, we must show that they may observe a misleading fact to reach to unfair conclusion. The fact that the reduction of vitamin B1 of a food both irradiated and cooked is similar in each process to the other does not mean that the 2 reduce the same amount of Vitamin B1 if taken individually, but means that such reduction is of a mixed combination from irradiation to cooking. Therefore, because it is of a combination from the two processes, we must take each process individually to reach to the most exact outcome: whether irradiation individually causes higher reduction of vitamin B1 than cooking does

But in the question it does not mention that irradiation happened on the same food after or prior to cooking. I understand E but I don't understand how it applies because no case of simultaneous cooking and irradiation was mentioned in the question.

I think this is a question from OG-12. Question No.-99. Just yesterday I solved this question.