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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..
In Episode 4 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we tackle the most intimidating CR question type: Boldface & "Legalese" questions. If you've ever stared at an answer choice that reads, "The first is a consideration introduced to counter a position that...
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.