Last visit was: 07 Sep 2026, 06:30 It is currently 07 Sep 2026, 06:30
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
dvtohir
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Last visit: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 45
Own Kudos:
79
Posts: 45
Kudos: 79
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 09 Apr 2007, 23:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
For the CR below IMO is E. Can someone explain why it is so?

My opinion: the way B1 associated with either process is compounded can’t explain why irradiation is no worse than cooking. E doesn’t take into consideration the fact that much irradiated food is eaten raw.

Just by process of elimination my pick would be C.


23-30: 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



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
defenestrate
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Last visit: 21 Aug 2013
Posts: 158
Own Kudos:
38
Posts: 158
Kudos: 38
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 10 Apr 2007, 02:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is correct.

The argument is about irradiation of food for sale, not about cooking food.

Perhaps I buy broccoli for its vitaman content, and love to eat that food row for the same reason, only to find out that there is no vitamans in it.

We cannot compare apples and oranges. The proper comparision would be between irradiated and non-irradiated foods.
User avatar
dvtohir
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Last visit: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 45
Own Kudos:
79
Posts: 45
Kudos: 79
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 10 Apr 2007, 04:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
defenestrate:

Thanks for your explanation
User avatar
ncp
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Last visit: 13 Feb 2023
Posts: 1,414
Own Kudos:
327
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Ann Arbor
Concentration: Health Care Marketing
Schools:Ross '10
Posts: 1,414
Kudos: 327
CR - Irradiation of Foods. Updated on: 10 Apr 2007, 10:01
Originally posted by ncp on 10 Apr 2007, 08:30.
Last edited by ncp on 10 Apr 2007, 10:01, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have to disagree with C.

The last sentence is intended to refute the argument that irradiation is no worse than cooking.

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since

The bold face segment is designed to argue that irradiation of foods which would be eaten raw will not be harmed by cooking. Thus irradiation is unnecessary and harmful for such food.

The section following the bold faced says 'or else misleading, since...'. This section is intended to prove that irradiation is harmful even for cooked foods. E completes the argument logically by stating that irradiation compounds the negative effect of cooking.

Thus E would be my pick.
User avatar
dwivedys
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Last visit: 02 Sep 2018
Posts: 597
Own Kudos:
778
Given Kudos: 17
Concentration: Strategy
Schools:Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Posts: 597
Kudos: 778
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 10 Apr 2007, 09:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ncprasad
I have to disagree with C.

The last sentence is intended to refute the argument that irradiation is no worse by cooking.

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since

The bold face segment is designed to argue that irradiation of foods which would be eaten raw will not be harmed by cooking. Thus irradiation is unnecessary and harmful for such food.

The section following the bold faced says 'or else misleading, since...'. This section is intended to prove that irradiation is harmful even for cooked foods. E completes the argument logically that irradiation compounds the negative effect of cooking.

Thus E would be my pick.
Show more


Good one >:d<
User avatar
anandsebastin
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Last visit: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 339
Own Kudos:
367
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Posts: 339
Kudos: 367
CR - Irradiation of Foods. 10 Apr 2007, 10:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dvtohir
For the CR below IMO is E. Can someone explain why it is so?

My opinion: the way B1 associated with either process is compounded can’t explain why irradiation is no worse than cooking. E doesn’t take into consideration the fact that much irradiated food is eaten raw.

Just by process of elimination my pick would be C.


23-30: 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
Show more


The key word here is "or misleading".
The claim of irradiation proponents: irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
Opposing point: much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading.
If the irradiated food is cooked again, more of Vitamin B1 is lost than is lost by either irradiation or cooking by themselves.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts