Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:05 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:05
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 Level|   Complete the Passage|                  
User avatar
BrentGMATPrepNow
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Last visit: 31 Oct 2025
Posts: 6,739
Own Kudos:
35,338
Given Kudos: 799
Location: Canada
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 6,739
Kudos: 35,338
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 04 Sep 2019, 11:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
icandy
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
Show more

SUMMARY:
Irradiation proponents say vitamin loss from irradiation is no worse than cooking.
HOWEVER, this is either beside the point (since a lot of irradiated food is NOT cooked) or misleading since...

So, we're looking for an answer choice that explains WHY it would be misleading to say that vitamin loss from irradiation is no worse than cooking

(A) This has nothing to do with vitamin loss from irradiation being no worse than cooking. ELIMINATE.

(B) This has nothing to do with vitamin loss from irradiation being no worse than cooking. ELIMINATE.

(C) This has nothing to do with vitamin loss from irradiation being no worse than cooking. ELIMINATE.

(D) This actually SUPPORTS the position held by irradiation proponents. That is, certain kinds of cooking are WORSE than irradiation (with regard to vitamin loss). ELIMINATE.

(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
So, vitamin loss from irradiation AND cooking is WORSE than just cooking.
So, it would be misleading to suggest that irradiation is no worse than cooking.

Answer: E

Cheers,
Brent
User avatar
maelstrom93
User avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2021
Last visit: 13 Nov 2022
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 11
Kudos: 1
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 29 Jan 2022, 07:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
Cooking kills more vitamin B1 than Irradiation
However, this fact is either beside the point,
fact = cooking killing more vitamin B1 than Irradiation
since much irradiated food is eaten raw,
or else misleading,
since ___________.

Key word = vitamin B1
The blank must be strengthening the fact.
D is out, because it is a repeat.
A,B,C are not about vitamin B1 = out.
User avatar
gloomybison
User avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2021
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 227
Own Kudos:
210
 [1]
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Turkey
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
GPA: 3.69
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Posts: 227
Kudos: 210
 [1]
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 17 May 2022, 11:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja experts ı want to clarify an issue that troubled me
the questions clearly states that most of the irradiated foods are eaten raw, ı faltered a bit to understand why saying that combining both (cooking and irradiation) is far worse is a weakener. Why should we care about foods that are both irradiated and cooked? aren't they negligible since most of the irradiated foods are eaten raw? Also proponents of irradiation never tells that even if you mix both method you would get the same amount of B1 vitamin? so why care to tell that combining both will give us a far worse result?

Many thanks
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [3]
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 23 May 2022, 09:00
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gloomybison
Hi experts ı want to clarify an issue that troubled me
the questions clearly states that most of the irradiated foods are eaten raw, ı faltered a bit to understand why saying that combining both (cooking and irradiation) is far worse is a weakener. Why should we care about foods that are both irradiated and cooked? aren't they negligible since most of the irradiated foods are eaten raw? Also proponents of irradiation never tells that even if you mix both method you would get the same amount of B1 vitamin? so why care to tell that combining both will give us a far worse result?

Many thanks
Show more
Let's start by breaking down the passage:

The author begins by contrasting a benefit of irradiation (it retards spoilage) with a cost (it lowers the nutritional value of many foods). Next, we learn that proponents defend irradiation by pointing out that cooking also destroys vitamin B1, and that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." Why do proponents point out this fact?

Well, we know they are "proponents of irradiation," so presumably they're arguing we should use irradiation. To build their argument, they call into question one of irradiation's costs -- namely, that it lowers the nutritional value of many foods.

Going back to the passage, the author suggests this fact is misleading. The correct answer should explain why it's misleading.

Let's now consider (E):

Quote:
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
Show more
The proponents defend irradiation by pointing out that cooking also destroys a significant percentage of vitamin B1. In other words, they're trying to argue that destroying vitamin B1 isn't really a big deal, since it's no worse than cooking. But if irradiation and cooking together destroy more vitamin B1 than cooking alone, this calls the proponents' defense into question.

In other words, the proponents want to defend irradiation by saying its destruction of nutrients is "no worse than cooking." But if irradiated food is cooked, it will have even fewer nutrients than cooked, non-irradiated food. So in this sense, irradiated food actually is worse than non-irradiated food. From this point of view, the proponents' argument is misleading.

Regarding the amount of irradiated food that is cooked: the passage doesn't tell us that most irradiated food is eaten raw, but rather that much irradiated food is eaten raw. The word "much" suggests that a large quantity of irradiated food is eaten raw, but it doesn't tell us anything about the amount of irradiated food that's cooked. In other words, it doesn't tell us anything about the breakdown of cooked vs. raw. Maybe half of irradiated food is cooked? Since the passage doesn't tell us that most irradiated food is eaten raw, we can't conclude that it's only rarely cooked.

Overall, proponents want us to think that irradiation is no worse than cooking because it destroys no more nutrients than cooking. But if (E) is correct, and the reduction of nutrients is compounded when food is both cooked and irradiated, the proponents' defense of irradiation no longer makes sense. So the fact they cited to build their argument is misleading, and (E) is correct.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
GraceSCKao
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 124
Own Kudos:
54
Given Kudos: 1,247
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 124
Kudos: 54
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 30 May 2022, 00:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
icandy


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
Show more

Hi experts avigutman IanStewart

Since the last sentence "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since ___________." uses the words "fact" and "misleading," could I say that our task here is not to weaken the proponents' claim itself but to give at least one reason why this claim may cause someone to believe something that is not true?

I chose (E) but was unsure, because I did not think that the option can be used to weaken the proponents' claim, which just compares the two processes (irradiation vs cooking) in terms of the reduction of vitamin B1. But later it struck me that the author of this argument does not aim to call the claim itself into question, but intend to point out that this claim, while correct itself, might make some people have a wrong idea. I thought so because the word "fact" is not equivalent of "claim," and the word "misleading" is not of "incorrect."

The wrong idea could be that food irradiation is fine, or that food irradiation does not hurt the food's nutrition value much. These two statements are misconception when (E) is taken into account-- for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.

Initially, my line of thinking was similar to that of this member:

dpvtank

The anti-conclusion that we want to dispute is: "Irradiation is no worse than cooking."
Show more

But now I think that this is not our task for this CR question. If this question were a typical "weaken-type" question, the author would write the final sentence as "However, this claim is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else incorrec, since ___________." And for this new question, (E) could not be the correct option.


Could you help confirm my analysis when you have time? :)
After practicing this question, I once again appreciated the importance of word choice in the CR section (or in the Verbal section as a whole.)

Thank you for your time and thoughts!
Thank you for helping me learn. :)
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
 [1]
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 01 Jun 2022, 13:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GraceSCKao

Since the last sentence "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since ___________." uses the words "fact" and "misleading," could I say that our task here is not to weaken the proponents' claim itself but to give at least one reason why this claim may cause someone to believe something that is not true?

I chose (E) but was unsure, because I did not think that the option can be used to weaken the proponents' claim, which just compares the two processes (irradiation vs cooking) in terms of the reduction of vitamin B1. But later it struck me that the author of this argument does not aim to call the claim itself into question, but intend to point out that this claim, while correct itself, might make some people have a wrong idea. I thought so because the word "fact" is not equivalent of "claim," and the word "misleading" is not of "incorrect."

The wrong idea could be that food irradiation is fine, or that food irradiation does not hurt the food's nutrition value much. These two statements are misconception when (E) is taken into account-- for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.

Initially, my line of thinking was similar to that of this member:

dpvtank

The anti-conclusion that we want to dispute is: "Irradiation is no worse than cooking."

But now I think that this is not our task for this CR question. If this question were a typical "weaken-type" question, the author would write the final sentence as "However, this claim is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else incorrec, since ___________." And for this new question, (E) could not be the correct option.
Show more
Bravo, GraceSCKao - perfect analysis!
In fact, I would go as far as to say that we're looking for an answer that supports (at least passively) the claim that "irradiation is no worse than cooking."
We're looking for some reason to believe that *although it's true that irradiation is no worse than cooking*, irradiation is nevertheless a problematic tool.
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 12 Oct 2023, 06:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB avigutman HaileyCusimano pls clarify why not C. The passage is only differentiating coking and irradiation. But choice C is saying cooking is the final step, implying that even with irradiation, cooking has to be performed. Now, if that is the case then the nutritional loss will definitely increase because nutritional loss will be happening as a result of both sources now instead of just 1. So this is adding a strengthener to misleading rgument by saying that when both are applied together one more loss s added


Also, E seems out of scope in the sense that passage has made conclusion based on both processes individually but E is talking of a different argument wherein both processes are applied together. And it is obvious that if they are applied together both will contribute to nutritional loss
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 31 Dec 2023, 16:01
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
GMATNinja KarishmaB avigutman HaileyCusimano pls clarify why not C. The passage is only differentiating coking and irradiation. But choice C is saying cooking is the final step, implying that even with irradiation, cooking has to be performed. Now, if that is the case then the nutritional loss will definitely increase because nutritional loss will be happening as a result of both sources now instead of just 1. So this is adding a strengthener to misleading rgument by saying that when both are applied together one more loss s added

Also, E seems out of scope in the sense that passage has made conclusion based on both processes individually but E is talking of a different argument wherein both processes are applied together. And it is obvious that if they are applied together both will contribute to nutritional loss
Show more
We actually can't assume from the passage that "if they are applied together both will contribute to nutritional loss."

We know that each method independently destroys some nutritional value -- for instance, the loss of a percentage of vitamin B1. But what if these methods destroy the same B1 molecules as one another? For instance, maybe certain B1 molecules are hidden away in the middle of the food, and cooking/irradiation won't harm those particular bits, but will destroy the rest of the B1. Then, you could first irradiate food and then cook it, and the cooking process wouldn't cause any damage beyond what happened in the irradiation process.

Consider this example: Playing soccer makes people happy. Playing volleyball also makes people happy. Can we say that playing BOTH soccer and volleyball will make people even happier? Nope, we can't -- maybe peak happiness is reached by playing one sport, and the second sport doesn't add more happiness on top.

(C) tells us that irradiation happens first, and then cooking happens. But we can't assume that cooking causes further damage to the food for the reasons discussed above.

(E), on the other hand, tells us that B1 damage is compounded when food is both cooked and irradiated. This is a big issue for the proponents of irradiation, because now we have lost TWICE as much nutrition as we would have with only one of those processes.

That's why (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
imRaj
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2023
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 361
Posts: 33
Kudos: 7
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 21 Feb 2024, 00:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

TriColor
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


Whenever an argument presents two sides, think of it as an ongoing debate. First the Pro side puts forward its arguments. Then the against side points out weaknesses or puts forward counter arguments. Option (E) fits perfectly into the argument.

Proponents of irradiation: Irradiation has effects similar to cooking. It is as bad as cooking is (which to most people is acceptable). You lose nutrients in cooking just as you lose them in irradiation. Hence, don't be concerned about irradiation. You would have anyway cooked the food and hence the vitamin would have been lost.

Author's counter argument (starts with However): This fact (the fact that irradiation is just like cooking) is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw (which means that we would not have cooked that food and hence the nutrients would not have been lost. They are lost because of irradiation), or else misleading, since _______.
for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
(which means that the food that is cooked after irradiation loses even more nutrients than food that is only cooked)

Hence the author is saying that irradiation is bad and we need to be concerned.

The other options do not make sense with this argument.
Show more
­   Hey KarishmaB, Does this sentence in the arg 'irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking' means that we are comparing only irradiated food with cooked + irradiated food or we are comparing only irradiated food with only cooked food? Thanks in advance
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [1]
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 21 Feb 2024, 21:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

TriColor
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


Whenever an argument presents two sides, think of it as an ongoing debate. First the Pro side puts forward its arguments. Then the against side points out weaknesses or puts forward counter arguments. Option (E) fits perfectly into the argument.

Proponents of irradiation: Irradiation has effects similar to cooking. It is as bad as cooking is (which to most people is acceptable). You lose nutrients in cooking just as you lose them in irradiation. Hence, don't be concerned about irradiation. You would have anyway cooked the food and hence the vitamin would have been lost.

Author's counter argument (starts with However): This fact (the fact that irradiation is just like cooking) is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw (which means that we would not have cooked that food and hence the nutrients would not have been lost. They are lost because of irradiation), or else misleading, since _______.
for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
(which means that the food that is cooked after irradiation loses even more nutrients than food that is only cooked)

Hence the author is saying that irradiation is bad and we need to be concerned.

The other options do not make sense with this argument.
Show more
 
Quote:
­   Hey KarishmaB, Does this sentence in the arg 'irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking' means that we are comparing only irradiated food with cooked + irradiated food or we are comparing only irradiated food with only cooked food? Thanks in advance 
Show more


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

The proponents are saying - "Don't worry about irradiation. It is just like cooking."
This would make sense if irradiation were REPLACING cooking i.e. if instead of cooking something before eating, we were irradiating it before eating i.e. if cooking were not required after irradiating. 

But, the author says that this is beside the point because most irradiated food is eaten raw (say fruits) so we would not have cooked them. Hence there is nutrition loss because of irradiation. Or misleading because foods that are irradiated and cooked (say certain vegetables) lose a lot of more of their nutrition. Hence he is explaining that "irradiation" does not replace "cooking" so saying that it is just like cooking is irrelevant.  
­
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 29 Sep 2025, 01:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is actually a really interesting one that tests your ability to spot flawed comparisons. Let's work through it together.

Understanding the Argument Structure

Notice how the passage sets up a debate here:
- Irradiation has a benefit: kills bacteria and prevents spoilage
- But also has a cost: destroys nutrients like vitamin B1
- Proponents defend by saying: "Hey, cooking does the same thing!"
- Author counters: This comparison is either irrelevant or misleading

Key Insight - Why the First Objection Works

The author already gives us one reason why the comparison fails: "much irradiated food is eaten raw". Think about it - if you irradiate lettuce and then eat it in a salad, comparing the nutritional loss to cooking doesn't make sense because you're not cooking that lettuce anyway!

Finding the Second Objection

So we need to complete: "...or else misleading, since __________"

Let's think about when the comparison would apply but still be misleading. That would be for foods that ARE cooked after irradiation. The proponents say "irradiation is no worse than cooking" - but what if a food gets both treatments?

Why E Works

Choice E reveals the flaw perfectly: "for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded"

Here's what this means: If irradiation destroys 40% of B1 and cooking destroys another 40%, you don't just lose 40% - you lose much more because the damages add up! The proponents' comparison becomes misleading because they're acting like it's one OR the other, when actually many foods suffer BOTH losses.

Quick Check of Other Choices:
- A talks about motivations (bias) but doesn't explain the logical flaw
- B just restates what we already know
- C discusses different purposes but doesn't address the nutritional comparison
- D actually supports the proponents - trap answer!

The answer is E.

Want to master the systematic framework for handling comparison-based CR arguments? You can check out the step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT to learn the complete analytical framework that works for all "misleading comparison" questions. You can also explore other GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron for structured practice here.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts