Last visit was: 17 May 2026, 22:57 It is currently 17 May 2026, 22:57
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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 (Hard)|   Complete the Passage|                  
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
916
 [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: 1,285
Kudos: 916
 [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
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 May 2026
Posts: 7,393
Own Kudos:
70,924
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,137
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
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,393
Kudos: 70,924
 [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
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 May 2026
Posts: 16,465
Own Kudos:
79,642
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,465
Kudos: 79,642
 [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
Kurtosis
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2021
Posts: 1,384
Own Kudos:
5,246
Given Kudos: 1,228
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,384
Kudos: 5,246
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 24 Jan 2018, 10:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The tone of the last sentence is negative. So, we have to look for an answer choice that states a negative aspect about irradiation.

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life - Irrelevant

(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has - Opposite.

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods - Opposite.

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is - Irrelevant

(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded - Correct

Answer: E
User avatar
spetznaz
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Last visit: 12 May 2026
Posts: 254
Own Kudos:
96
Given Kudos: 150
Location: India
Schools: Tepper '21 (D) IIMC PGPEX"20 (A) ISB '20 (A) HEC Jan19 Intake IIMA PGPX"20 (A) IIMB EPGP"20 (D) IMD '21 (D)
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.33
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Tepper '21 (D) IIMC PGPEX"20 (A) ISB '20 (A) HEC Jan19 Intake IIMA PGPX"20 (A) IIMB EPGP"20 (D) IMD '21 (D)
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Posts: 254
Kudos: 96
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe 26 Jan 2018, 09:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
+1 for option E. My take:

This question asks us to complete the argument. The argument says that irradiation kills bacteria and retards spoilage. There is a disadvantage however associated with this method i.e. Vitamin B1 getting destroyed. Proponents claim that no worse than cooking in this regard. i.e, cooking is similar to irradiation or even worse. The author however feels that the aforementioned point is either beside the point or misleading. Why is it misleading ? The answer to this question lies in the correct answer option.

Pre-think :

Think of an option that proves that the proponent's stand is misleading.

POE :

Option a: Irrelevant
Option b : Goes against the "misleading direction !"
Option c : We are not concerned about the shelf life
Option d : We are concerned about irradiation and not about cooking
Option e : Convoluted looking choice .. but look at it. It says that if you both cook and irradiate the food , reduction in B1 associated with either process is compounded. This makes the proponents statement appear misleading. Hence this is close to our line of reasoning.

Hence option E is the correct answer.
User avatar
BrentGMATPrepNow
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Last visit: 31 Oct 2025
Posts: 6,733
Own Kudos:
36,586
Given Kudos: 799
Location: Canada
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 6,733
Kudos: 36,586
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: 10
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 10
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
GraceSCKao
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
54
Given Kudos: 1,244
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: 117
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
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 May 2026
Posts: 735
Own Kudos:
570
Given Kudos: 337
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 735
Kudos: 570
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
imRaj
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2023
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 361
Posts: 31
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
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 11 May 2026
Posts: 5,631
Own Kudos:
33,458
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,631
Kudos: 33,458
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
7393 posts
AbhishekP220108
575 posts
bhanu29
368 posts