Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 28 May 2017, 04:37

### 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

# The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [7] , given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 15:04
7
KUDOS
70
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:20) correct 53% (01:44) wrong based on 3062 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 _______.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
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 carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Current Student
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '17 (A), IIMA (A)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 65

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 01:42
IMO D

Not B because the last statement is trying to underline the fact that irradiation doesn't really matter whereas, B brings forth more negative aspects of irradiation.

Not C - Same as above but in this case, C mentions a positive fact about irradiation

D because this point states the irradiation is the lesser of two evils.

Not E bacause it's not about both irrdiation and cooking together but about either irradiation or cooking

Hope I'm not wrong
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 267
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 02:00
IMO C
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 823
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 322 [6] , given: 106

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 03:53
6
KUDOS
here there is a need to prove that argument "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is misleading.

3 foods: (there could be more but that would be out of scope)

radiated + not cooked(raw) - covered in "this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
only cooked - (not relevant I think in this context, as effect of radiation can't be estimated or compared.
radiated + cooking - This is the one we need to look into as in option E.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 48
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 07:45
IMO C

It completes the argument because it shows why the statement is misleading. Cooking and irradiation are separate processes that are not used for the same purpose.

Any OA for this?
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 11:06
IMO C

However, indicates a dispute to the fact "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"
We need to weaken the argument.

A - not relevant to facts
B - elimination of bacteria seems to be the only reason of irradiation
D - strengthens the argument

C - weakens the argument by showing the two processes are not comparable (apples and oranges)
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 290
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 18:21
hard one between C and E, picked E because:

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods -only says cooking is last step where as irradiation is to ensure longer shelf life, but DOES NOT suggest anything might be related or not related......only facts that are not connected at all....close but not the answer
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded - Picking E because the passage says it as if irradiated food's vitamin B1 value can't be lowered further...which is totally untrue. thus E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 267
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 08:19
well this is the third time i m doing this and this time its definately D for me.......PLs share the OA
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 08:36
I scanned through the OG 12 Book and found it

Q 99 - OA is E

Does a poor job of explaining why.
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 267
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 421 [12] , given: 18

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 08:48
12
KUDOS
God Save us!!!!! Dont give this type of ques in Gmat
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [11] , given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 18:03
11
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
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 carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

IMO - E

We need to complete the last senetnce is - "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is ten raw, or else misleading, since _______."

What is the Fact here? Fact is Irriadiation is no worse than cooking. Cooking destroys the Vitamin B1. Irriadiation also destroys VB1. Conslusion made is Irriadation is no worse than cooking. By taking this conclusion a customer should think that if irriadation is done then there is NO issue and customer should buy irridiated food.

So as per the last sentence if irridiated food is eaten Raw then it will have less VB1 but it is still ok because after cooking also some VB is reduced. So if you eat raw irridated food then it is fine, OTHERWISE you are misleaded because after cooking you have VB1 reduced by irridiated and VB2 recuded by cooking. So irridation is making food more worse after cooking.
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [11] , given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 06:46
11
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Don't overlook the word "misleading". The stimulus says that irradiation does not deplete the food of Vit B1 anymore than what cooking does. Okay, but what if the irradiated food is supposed to be cooked and not eaten raw? E says that depletion of Vit. B1 increases as the effect of irradiation and cooking on Vit B1 is additive. This implies that irradiation of food that needs to be cooked makes Vit B1 lower than just irradiated food or just cooked food. So, irradiating certain kinds of foods could make matters worse for Vit B1.
Hence, E it is.
Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2009, 11:23
Thanks for the reply post. The OA is indeed E.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 119
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2009, 20:11
rkassal wrote:
Don't overlook the word "misleading". The stimulus says that irradiation does not deplete the food of Vit B1 anymore than what cooking does. Okay, but what if the irradiated food is supposed to be cooked and not eaten raw? E says that depletion of Vit. B1 increases as the effect of irradiation and cooking on Vit B1 is additive. This implies that irradiation of food that needs to be cooked makes Vit B1 lower than just irradiated food or just cooked food. So, irradiating certain kinds of foods could make matters worse for Vit B1.
Hence, E it is.

Great explanation rkassal! This is a difficult one!
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 257
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 116 [2] , given: 23

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2009, 21:54
2
KUDOS
I got E on my first try.

D is wrong because it actually supports the proponent of irradiation. The author is trying to say that the proponents are giving misleading info.

C is weak, but I understand why people chose it.

E completes the line of logic. For food which is not cooked, such as apples, what excuse do they have to kill the vitamins with irradiation. For food that is cooked, the problem is that you're double-tasing the vitamins...
Manager
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 225
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 39

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2009, 04:16
I remember this question, I got it right. The answer is E.
_________________

Consider giving Kudos if you like the post.

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2008
Posts: 166
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 39

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2009, 00:13
E
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 942
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [3] , given: 40

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 04:09
3
KUDOS
Jesus,

This is from Alpha centuary and based on 4th dimension.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1203 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2011, 17:33
not an easy one
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2011, 07:46
TriColor wrote:
-----------------------------------------

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 food’s having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
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 carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

I don't understand how the compounded reduction of vitamin B1 done by both processes makes the argument by the proponents of irradiation misleading.

Proponents point out :
Quote:
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.

It might be the case that irradiation reduces B1 levels by 10 % and cooking by 50 % totaling 60 % reduction. That would mean, proponents are right. Irradiation isn't worse than cooking.
The author seems to accept the possibility that proponents would have to be implying that there is no additional reduction of vitamin B1 when products undergo both processes. In other words, the harm done by irradiation, would not be significant since cooking will do much more. Hence, their argument is misleading.

However, there are no grounds for this reasoning of the author, since arguments about both irradiated and cooked products weren't made by the proponents. Furthermore, as the author pointed out, much of the irradiated food is eaten raw, making the possibility of
Quote:
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.

Gosh, I sound like a proponent of irradiation because of this question! :D

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 65 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
13 Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf 7 24 Apr 2017, 06:02
4 Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plas 5 15 Feb 2017, 10:32
1 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 1 15 Feb 2013, 22:12
9 The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards 11 19 Jul 2016, 04:59
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars 0 01 Mar 2012, 03:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by