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

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 16:24

### 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

# 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
Joined: 13 Aug 2015
Posts: 204
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Retail Banking)
Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2017, 22:54
2
6
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (02:18) correct 32% (02:30) wrong based on 409 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.
Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 86
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

30 Aug 2018, 01:36
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
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 41
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2017, 09:09
Hi,

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

Regards,
Pratik
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 15
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2017, 20:46
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
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Posts: 728
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Irradiation of food by gamma rays  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2017, 00:59
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 (98.95) & 2018 (98.91) : 99th percentiler
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
Joined: 24 Sep 2018
Posts: 137
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 08:21
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 kudos, If this post helped you in someway.
examPAL Representative
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 1153
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2018, 08:59
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.
_________________
Re: Proponent: Irradiation of food by gamma rays would keep it from   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2018, 08:59
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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne