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

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.

Hi,

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

Regards,
Pratik

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________