It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 01:28

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR - Irradiation of Foods.

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2007, 23:35
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 canâ€™t explain why irradiation is no worse than cooking. E doesnâ€™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 foodâ€™s
having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect
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
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 292

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2007, 02:22
C is correct.

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.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2007, 04:18
defenestrate:

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1552

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 1

Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2007, 08:30
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.

Last edited by ncp on 10 Apr 2007, 10:01, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 1

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2007, 09:16
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.

Good one >:d<

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2007, 10:55
dvtohir wrote:
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 canâ€™t explain why irradiation is no worse than cooking. E doesnâ€™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 foodâ€™s
having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect
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
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded

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

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 1

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR - Irradiation of Foods.

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.