GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 31 Mar 2020, 09:44

### 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

# Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Transforming Educational System
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
Posts: 465
Location: India
Concentration: Nonprofit, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Boston U '20 (A)
WE: Education (Non-Profit and Government)
Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 21:31
9
24
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (02:19) correct 36% (02:32) wrong based on 1111 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

The opponent’s argument proceeds by
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Source: LSAT Critical Reasoning
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2017
Posts: 71
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2017, 17:30
1
Quote:
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

Proponent states irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling (prevents from bad odor). The added advantage, gamma rays kill Salmonella bacteria. Opponent states, gamma rays does not effect botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning. In fact, gamma rays kills bad odor which is a way of identifying botulism.

Therefore, the opponent’s argument proceeds by showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Posts: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.7
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2017, 14:32
1

I am stuck on E and just cannot understand why is B a better option than E
Retired Moderator
Status: Transforming Educational System
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
Posts: 465
Location: India
Concentration: Nonprofit, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Boston U '20 (A)
WE: Education (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2017, 18:32
1
(A) is irrelevant. We're not talking about what might happen if you store poorly.
(C) doesn't matter--the argument already considers them separate issues ("nutrition or safety")
(D) So?
(E) Again... so? We're just worried about whether there's a safety or nutrition issue, here.

Here was my line of thinking when I came to (B). I too was turned off by the "raw food" bit.
We know vitamin losses occur in cooking - shown when the author says "vitamin losses [that occur in irradiation] are comparable to those that occur in cooking").
We also know that irradiation causes some vitamin losses too as the statement shows above.
So if irradiation causes vitamin losses and cooking causes vitamin losses, then cooking irradiated food would be less nutritionally beneficial than cooking non-irradiated food. Therefore, the part about having "no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition" is bogus!
Now we get to the part about "if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food."
Now we have the same thing: we are comparing irradiated food and non-irradiated food. From this statement, we see clearly that irradiated food "would not have the vitamin advantage" of regular raw food. In other words raw, non-irradiated, food has more vitamins.
So irradiated food that is COOKED has less vitamins and irradiated food that is RAW has less vitamins. Ultimately, irradiated food has less vitamins than raw food. If the opponent states, "well, irradiated food still needs cooking," he would DESTROY the proponent's argument that "there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition."
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2017
Posts: 71
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2017, 07:26
2
puneetj88 wrote:

I am stuck on E and just cannot understand why is B a better option than E

(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Here the opponent's argument is not proceeded by pointing out an alternate way. It is proceeded by pointing out the problem with irradiation "The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism" that the proponent misses which results in self contradiction.
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2017
Posts: 71
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2017, 07:27
2
puneetj88 wrote:

I am stuck on E and just cannot understand why is B a better option than E

(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Here the opponent's argument is not proceeded by pointing out an alternate way. It is proceeded by pointing out the problem with irradiation "The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism" that the proponent misses which results in self contradiction.
Joined: 21 Apr 2018
Posts: 13
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 580 Q39 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q43 V35
GPA: 3.33
WE: Account Management (Advertising and PR)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2018, 19:20
3
1
I approached it from a slightly different perspective - I really tried to outline and think through why B is the correct answer, so apologies if this is long:

It was easy to eliminate E) because the question stem explicitly states "The opponent’s argument proceeds by:", meaning we should be concerned with the argument that comes immediately after the question. If you read the opponent's argument, it looks as if it's made from two statements put together. "Moreover" signals this.

I didn't' get B) at first (I answered C), but thinking it through made more sense. Let's think about the proponent's conclusion if you will:
Quote:
...so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety.

The first clue is the language being used ("no reason to reject") - this is strong language. If we can supply any reason that will let us cast doubt on the proponent's argument, we'll be all set*. We would need something in the opponent's argument that refutes the proponent's line of thinking, as if to say, irradiation CAN be rejected on grounds of health or safety. And we can find that in the opponent's argument:
Quote:
The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed.

In some ways, this doesn't refute the argument directly or forcefully, which may be why people don't initially consider B). You may think "well this doesn't directly cause the proponent to contradict himself".

But by brining up botulism, the opponent gives a reason why irradiation can be refuted, therefore giving us a reason to reject irradiation on safety grounds. If irradiation still allows the bacteria causing botulism to live (in fact it kills the bacteria that could've helped you detect it!), that means irradiation doesn't make the food completely safe. If something doesn't completely address the problem, then there is still grounds to reject that course of action.

In addition, the proponent mentions "Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling" - but the opponent demonstrates that gamma rays don't fully keep food from spoiling.

This is how the proponent contradicts himself: by stating his conclusion in absolutes ("no reason to reject"), but relying on an argument (irradiation can prevent against food spoilage) that isn't air-tight and can be rejected by the opponent.
---
*I know this technically isn't a "weakening"-type question, but I think it helps to frame the question differently if it doesn't make sense at first.
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2018, 11:35
puneetj88 wrote:

I am stuck on E and just cannot understand why is B a better option than E

(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction

The opponent does not proceed with helping obtain an advantage in (E), it just negates the idea (advantage) proposed by the proponent by proposing that The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria.. , the second part of statement E is true. In statement (B), it proceeds with showing that the claims made by the proponent are false "The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism" which result in a self contradiction.
Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2018
Posts: 2
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2018, 07:59
2
What is "self-contradiction"? Doesn't it mean that the argument has logically problems?
The opponent is contradicting the proponent, rather than making the proponent's argument self-contradiction.
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2018
Posts: 3
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2018, 13:58
what is "proceeds by"? that's not even the right idiom.

Essentially if you think that self-contradiction in proponent's argument is the existence of 2 explicit but contradictory statements, you will choose E as the answer & you will get the question wrong. B is the correct answer. still a poorly modified question.
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2018
Posts: 7
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 10:38
Hi, I have gone through the explanations given this post but still not able to understand how B is he right answer.

Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2018
Posts: 58
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2018, 04:03
DmitryFarber TommyWallach
Request you to step in.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that statement that the Proponent's argument is contradictory.

Also, the Opponent does give an alternative method to kill the bacteria.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10230
Location: Pune, India
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2018, 05:41
2
vivek6199 wrote:
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

The opponent’s argument proceeds by
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Source: LSAT Critical Reasoning

Proponent: Irradiation helps keep food from spoiling. No radiation and no loss of vitamins (anymore than cooking) so don't reject on the grounds of nutrition or safety. In fact it kills Salmonella (hence improves food safety)

Opponent: Irradiation has no effect on botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn of botulism (hence increases risk of botulism). Safe chemical dip can kill off both salmonella and botulism bacteria.

What does the opponent's argument do?

(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
No ambiguity in any term.

(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
No, it doesn't show any self contradiction in proponent's argument. It only highlights a disadvantage of irradiation (botulism issue) and then provides an alternative to take care of both salmonella and botulism.

(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
Nope. No undesirable consequences of safe chemical dip.

(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
No, safety of consumers is being considered by both.

(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
Correct. Alternative way is safe chemical dip which kills salmonella too (an advantage claimed by proponent). The safe dip does not risk botulism (a disadvantage of irradiation).

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2017
Posts: 18
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.31
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2018, 11:07
vivek6199 wrote:
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

The opponent’s argument proceeds by
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Source: LSAT Critical Reasoning

Proponent: Irradiation helps keep food from spoiling. No radiation and no loss of vitamins (anymore than cooking) so don't reject on the grounds of nutrition or safety. In fact it kills Salmonella (hence improves food safety)

Opponent: Irradiation has no effect on botulism bacteria but kills bacteria that warn of botulism (hence increases risk of botulism). Safe chemical dip can kill off both salmonella and botulism bacteria.

What does the opponent's argument do?

(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
No ambiguity in any term.

(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
No, it doesn't show any self contradiction in proponent's argument. It only highlights a disadvantage of irradiation (botulism issue) and then provides an alternative to take care of both salmonella and botulism.

(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
Nope. No undesirable consequences of safe chemical dip.

(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
No, safety of consumers is being considered by both.

(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage
Correct. Alternative way is safe chemical dip which kills salmonella too (an advantage claimed by proponent). The safe dip does not risk botulism (a disadvantage of irradiation).

VeritasKarishma The OA is B.... is this correct or not?
Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 720
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2018, 19:51
gmat1393,

Does the OA need to be changed to E? Please check it out.

Regards,
_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 154
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.99
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2018, 20:25
I see expert replies quoting B and E both. Can someone clear the confusion on the official answer.
It will also help if some explains in simple manner regarding comparison of answer B and E.
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2017
Posts: 97
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2018, 04:15
Can someone confirm the correct ans for this question.

Posted from my mobile device
CR Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Posts: 629
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2018, 08:03
gmat1393,

Does the OA need to be changed to E? Please check it out.

Regards,

Done.
Thanks for noticing
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2454
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2019, 10:17
vivek6199 wrote:
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores. The process leaves no radiation behind, and vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking, so there is no reason to reject irradiation on the grounds of nutrition or safety. Indeed, it kills harmful Salmonella bacteria, which in contaminated poultry have caused serious illness to consumers.

Opponent: The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism, a very serious form of food poisoning, while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed. Moreover, Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip.

The opponent’s argument proceeds by
(A) isolating an ambiguity in a crucial term in the proponent’s argument
(B) showing that claims made in the proponent’s argument result in a self-contradiction
(C) establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of either one of two proposed remedies
(D) shifting perspective from safety with respect to consumers to safety with respect to producers
(E) pointing out an alternative way of obtaining an advantage claimed by the proponent without risking a particular disadvantage

Source: LSAT Critical Reasoning

Powerscore official explanation-

The “proponent” in this stimulus suggests gamma-ray irradiation to keep food from spoiling, based on the facts that it kills Salmonella, and that vitamin depletion is comparable to that of cooking. The “opponent” disagrees, pointing out two shortcomings of irradiation: it has no effect on botulism, and it would get rid of the warning-sign odor. Additionally, the opponent points out a safe, chemical alternative to irradiation which kills both Salmonella and botulism-causing bacteria.

The question asks for the method of reasoning chosen by the opponent, a question whose answer can certainly be paraphrased: the opponent responds by:

i) pointing out shortcomings of the proponent's plan; and

ii) suggesting another option for solving the proponent’s problem.

Correct answer choice (E) restates our paraphrase above, in more concise terms: the opponent suggests an alternative without the associated detriment.

Answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because the issue is with the proponent’s solution, not with any ambiguity or self-contradiction. Answer choice (C) is wrong because the opponent’s suggestion does not bring with it the same undesirable consequences. Answer choice (D) is incorrect because there is no such shift in perspective reflected in the proponent’s argument.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling   [#permalink] 31 Jan 2019, 10:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by