It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 14:58

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

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 217
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 10:06
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
E - about both cooking and irradiation neither weakens or strengthens.

C - weakens the argument by showing the two processes are not comparable (apples and oranges)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 285
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2009, 17:21
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 217
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 07:36
I scanned through the OG 12 Book and found it

Q 99 - OA is E

Does a poor job of explaining why.
18 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2009, 17:03
18
This post received
KUDOS
4
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.
14 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 50
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2009, 05:46
14
This post received
KUDOS
5
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 118
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2009, 19:11
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!
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 242
Location: New York, NY
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2009, 20:54
2
This post received
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 133
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2010, 15:13
E is correct
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 11
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2010, 21:40
But in the question it does not mention that irradiation happened on the same food after or prior to cooking. I understand E but I don't understand how it applies because no case of simultaneous cooking and irradiation was mentioned in the question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 161
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2010, 00:50
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

it is the most natural choice among all others
3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 923
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2010, 03:09
3
This post received
KUDOS
Jesus,

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

Want to improve your CR: http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 7
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2011, 06:46
TriColor wrote:
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

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.
to be misleading quite improbable.

Gosh, I sound like a proponent of irradiation because of this question! :D
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 241
Concentration: Healthcare, General Management
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2011, 17:41
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.

Image Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Posts: 3
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2011, 16:39
The key here is to breakdown the last sentence, "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______." An easy way to do this is:

This fact is either:
-beside the point: because much irradiated food is eaten raw
-or misleading: since _____

The author is trying to attack proponents of irradiation point, that "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." In the first part of the sentence, he attacked the proponents of irradiated food by saying that much irradiated food is eaten raw. To complete his argument, he must say something about irradiated food that is cooked, thus E is clearly the answer
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: A continuous journey of self-improvement is essential for every person -Socrates
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 70
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2011, 20:08
unplugged wrote:
What is the source?

Do you have OE?

Cheers,
Unplugged


bigfernhead wrote:
Isn't this an OG question? This one sounds familiar...


I think this is a question from OG-12. Question No.-99. Just yesterday I solved this question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 199
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2011, 23:31
Good question. I chose D. But OA is E!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: GMAT in 4 weeks
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Posts: 176
GPA: 3.89
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Apr 2011, 10:44
good explanation from gmat tool kit
_________________

If you liked my post, please consider a Kudos for me. Thanks!

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 28
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2011, 18:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
billnepill wrote:
TriColor wrote:
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

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.
to be misleading quite improbable.

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


I too had a hard time understanding it, but after multiple posts and crossing of thoughts, I feel this is the best answer.

Understand this

Proponents say - Irradiated is no worse than cooking. that means, "if" irradiated ( and not cooked ) it will reduce the amount of vitamins from food, and thereby do what normal cooking does to the food.

The option says, "WHAT IF IRRADIATED FOOD HAS TO BE COOKED" ?

DO WE COOK FOOD TWICE TO EAT IT ? NO !

then why should we irradiate and then cook it, if they are doing the same purpose ?

therefore the proponents are missing this valid point where irradiated food has to be cooked as well

therefore irradiation is NOT SIMILAR to cooking. It is a process, which may or may not require cooking.

Case 1 : doesnt require cooking -- beside the point, coz proponents say it is similar to cooking
Case 2 : requires cooking -- misleading coz it will reduce the food even more than "COOKING ALONE" would have done.

Makes sense ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 33
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2011, 00:57
this is a combination of tricky question and subtle answer. Just wonder what is the level of this question?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 33
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2011, 00:59
sap wrote:
billnepill wrote:
TriColor wrote:
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

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.
to be misleading quite improbable.

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


I too had a hard time understanding it, but after multiple posts and crossing of thoughts, I feel this is the best answer.

Understand this

Proponents say - Irradiated is no worse than cooking. that means, "if" irradiated ( and not cooked ) it will reduce the amount of vitamins from food, and thereby do what normal cooking does to the food.

The option says, "WHAT IF IRRADIATED FOOD HAS TO BE COOKED" ?

DO WE COOK FOOD TWICE TO EAT IT ? NO !

then why should we irradiate and then cook it, if they are doing the same purpose ?

therefore the proponents are missing this valid point where irradiated food has to be cooked as well

therefore irradiation is NOT SIMILAR to cooking. It is a process, which may or may not require cooking.

Case 1 : doesnt require cooking -- beside the point, coz proponents say it is similar to cooking
Case 2 : requires cooking -- misleading coz it will reduce the food even more than "COOKING ALONE" would have done.

Makes sense ?


good explanation..
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe   [#permalink] 21 Aug 2011, 00:59

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6    Next  [ 111 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.