GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Nov 2018, 12:18

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     06:00 PM EST

     07:00 PM EST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 13 Aug 2015
Posts: 208
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Retail Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2017, 21:54
2
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:58) correct 31% (02:15) wrong based on 347 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.

Which one of the following could the opponent properly cite as indicating a flaw in the proponent's reasoning concerning vitamin losses?

(A) After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
(B) Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
(C) Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
(D) Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
(E) That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.

_________________

If you like my posts, please give kudos. Help me unlock gmatclub tests.

Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q41 V34
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2018, 00:36
6
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.


The Proponent of Gamma Radiation mentions the following:
1. Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores.
2. No traditions are left behind.
3. Loss of vitamin with gamma radiations = Loss of vitamins that occurs during cooking.
4. Kills harmful Salmonella bacteria
Hence tries to defend the gamma radiation on the grounds of safety and nutrition.

The Opponent of Gamma Radiation mentions:
1. Gamma radiations ineffective on the certain type of bacteria that causes botulism (A serious form of food poisoning).
2. Gamma radiations rather kill the bacteria that causes bad odour, which could indicate botulism.
3. Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed by an alternate method.

Hence the opponent challenges the safety front of the proponent.

Quote:
Which one of the following could the opponent properly cite as indicating a flaw in the proponent's reasoning concerning vitamin losses?

The author asks what could opponent cite to the proponent on the front of the nutrition losses I.e. vitamin losses.

Quote:
(A) After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.

This can be true in the situation mentioned, but this doesn't address the argument that opponent may present to counter the point of nutrition i.e. vitamin, mentioned by the proponent.

Quote:
(B) Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.

This point address the nutritional concern by the opponent saying that
1. "Irradiated food would still need cooking", which means that further loss of the vitamins (Loss due to radiation+ regular loss due to the cooking),
2. "if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food", which means even if the food is eaten raw by people, it still won't be as nutritious as it would be without radiations.

Quote:
(C) Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.

This provides no new information, than the one given in the stimulus. Yes vitamin loss is a separate issue than safety, hence opponent needs to address this separately.

Quote:
(D) Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.

The alternate methods of ingesting the vitamins aren't of any concern here.

Quote:
(E) That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.

Who is the beneficiary of the above mentioned proponent phenomena is not a legitimate concern, but the concern is the nutrias value of the food which the opponent needs to argue about.
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 48
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2017, 08:09
Hi,

Do we need Opponent paragraph in the question? I think that is redundant here.

Regards,
Pratik
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 16
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2017, 19:46
I find options B and D quite close to be the answer. However, will go with option B. If irrigated fool still requires cooking then already a most of the vitamins lost food if required to cook then ,in cooking process, it will lose a few more vitamins, leaving us with a food with almost no vitamins.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Posts: 631
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 23:59
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.


Which one of the following could the opponent properly cite as indicating a flaw in the proponent’s reasoning concerning vitamin losses?

So we have to focus on the vitamin loss and not safety as per the question

(A) After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
This has no concern with the vitamin loss.

(B) Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
Yes irradiated food will be cooked again. So there will be more loss to vitamins and if eaten raw already vitamin losses has happened. So the statement of vitamin loss "vitamin losses are comparable to those that occur in cooking" fells apart.

(C) Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
We are not concerned about it.

(D) Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
If this can happen then there is no worry and we should not be concerned about vitamin losses. We can use pill or vitamin can be ingested in food.(There may be side effects but it is out of scope.)
(E) That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.
Not related to vitamin losses.
_________________

CAT 2017 99th percentiler : VA 97.27 | DI-LR 96.84 | QA 98.04 | OA 98.95
UPSC Aspirants : Get my app UPSC Important News Reader from Play store.

MBA Social Network : WebMaggu


Appreciate by Clicking +1 Kudos ( Lets be more generous friends.)



What I believe is : "Nothing is Impossible, Even Impossible says I'm Possible" : "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish".

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Sep 2018
Posts: 137
CAT Tests
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2018, 07:21
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.
The Proponent of Gamma Radiation mentions the following:
1. Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from spoiling before it reaches the consumer in food stores.
2. No traditions are left behind.
3. Loss of vitamin with gamma radiations = Loss of vitamins that occurs during cooking.
4. Kills harmful Salmonella bacteria
Hence tries to defend the gamma radiation on the grounds of safety and nutrition.

The Opponent of Gamma Radiation mentions:
1. Gamma radiations ineffective on the certain type of bacteria that causes botulism (A serious form of food poisoning).
2. Gamma radiations rather kill the bacteria that causes bad odour, which could indicate botulism.
3. Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism can easily be killed by an alternate method.

Hence the opponent challenges the safety front of the proponent.

Quote:
Which one of the following could the opponent properly cite as indicating a flaw in the proponent's reasoning concerning vitamin losses?
The author asks what could opponent cite to the proponent on the front of the nutrition losses I.e. vitamin losses.

Quote:
(A) After irradiation, food might still spoil if kept in storage for a long time after being purchased by the consumer.
This can be true in the situation mentioned, but this doesn't address the argument that opponent may present to counter the point of nutrition i.e. vitamin, mentioned by the proponent.
Quote:
(B) Irradiated food would still need cooking, or, if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food.
This point address the nutritional concern by the opponent saying that
1. "Irradiated food would still need cooking", which means that further loss of the vitamins (Loss due to radiation+ regular loss due to the cooking),
2. "if eaten raw, it would not have the vitamin advantage of raw food", which means even if the food is eaten raw by people, it still won't be as nutritious as it would be without radiations.
Quote:
(C) Vitamin loss is a separate issue from safety.
This provides no new information, than the one given in the stimulus. Yes vitamin loss is a separate issue than safety, hence opponent needs to address this separately.
Quote:
(D) Vitamins can be ingested in pill form as well as in foods.
The alternate methods of ingesting the vitamins aren't of any concern here.
Quote:
(E) That food does not spoil before it can be offered to the consumer is primarily a benefit to the seller, not to the consumer.
Who is the beneficiary of the above mentioned proponent phenomena is not a legitimate concern, but the concern is the nutrias value of the food which the opponent needs to argue about.
_________________

Please award :thumbup: kudos, If this post helped you in someway. :student_man:

examPAL Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 799
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2018, 07:59
mukulvaidya wrote:
I find options B and D quite close to be the answer. However, will go with option B. If irrigated fool still requires cooking then already a most of the vitamins lost food if required to cook then ,in cooking process, it will lose a few more vitamins, leaving us with a food with almost no vitamins.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app


You are correct about B. However, why do you find D to be close?
Note that the original argument is that irradiation is good, versus all other methods - not versus food specifically. thus, the information that a pill is also possible doesn't really add anything.
_________________

Image
Sign up for 7-day free trial
Image

I am a CR Expert - Ask Me ANYTHING about CR
I am a DS Expert - Ask Me ANYTHING about DS


Halloween SALE at exmaPAL!

Save 25% on any GMAT/GRE course! Claim it today.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from &nbs [#permalink] 25 Sep 2018, 07:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.