It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 12:31

### 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 spoilage. Howe

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Posts: 204

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 105

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q49 V47
GPA: 3.08
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2012, 09:44
I was hesitating for a while and finally ended up selecting E. After reading the prompt about 3 times, answer E was the most logical answer. The argument suggests that both irradiation and cooking have the same detrimental effect on vitamin B1. With the facts presented in statement E, this argument becomes misleading since it never mentions the possibility of the damage to B1 being compounded.

Hard to explain sorry.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 105

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 20

Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2012, 17:02
IMO E.

My observation:- Since the overall contents of this question are long, chances are that the answer choice will be an easy one.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 20

Manager
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 129 [0], given: 61

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2012, 21:20
gonna go with E on this one.

you double the reduction of vitamin b with irradiation...

ex. 90% of vitamins are destroyed when cooked or irradiated.
plant b has 100mg of vitamin b.
after cooking: 1mg

Kudos [?]: 129 [0], given: 61

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 232

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2012, 02:49
This is very good question.
Argument states that irradiation destroys b1.
coking does the same.

however, irradiated food eatten raw. so irradiation and cooking will have compunded impact in reducing b1.

IMO E
_________________

-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 17 [1], given: 18

Location: India
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 22:32
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Please think out loud and share your strategies/approach... Previous posts were not of much help...

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 signifi cant 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 foods’ 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 fi nal 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
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process
individually is compounded
_________________

Kudos if you like the post!!!

Kudos [?]: 17 [1], given: 18

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1354

Kudos [?]: 651 [3], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 23:29
3
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The stimulus says that the fact that irradiation is no worse than cooking can be misleading because......

You must choose the answer choice here that explains why irradiation can in fact be worse than cooking alone.

(A) This has no relation to cooking at all - Irrelevant.
(B) Even if irradiation has effects other than killing bacteria in food, those effects may be positive or negative. In either case, this does not represent a misleading statement and again has no relation to cooking - Irrelevant
(C) Even if cooking is used only to prepare foods and irradiation only to preserve them, this does not represent a misleading fact, because it is still possible that the effects of irradiation are still not as harmful as those of cooking - Incorrect
(D) If certain kinds of cooking is more destructive, it supports the assertion that irradiation is no worse than cooking, and can therefore not be misleading - Incorrect
(E) If the harmful effects of either process are compounded, then saying that irradiation is no worse than cooking is indeed a misleading statement, because it misleads us into believing that the effect of irradiation on food is no worse than the effect of cooking on food, which goes against this fact. - CORRECT

(E) is therefore the correct choice.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 651 [3], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 27 [2], given: 55

Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.78
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2012, 16:03
2
KUDOS
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

There is already a lot of discussion here on what the correct answer is, so I won't go into that. I also originally got "C" even though it was wrong. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out WHY I made the mistake and what was it about the question that misdirected me so much. There have been far too many times that I've just forced an explanation down my throat when I got a question wrong. The result? The lesson doesn't stick when I re-do the question, and it doesn't help me apply the lessons to other questions. Here are my thoughts and lessons from this question; I hope they help others see a more natural way of seeing the right answer.

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

Ah! Upon much reflection, this is what I missed. In CR passages, we're almost always trying to find the conclusion. In this case we have the anti-conclusion...the central point that we are trying to dispute. I really needed to think about this fact deeply to see the "natural" reason why 'E' is the right answer.

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

Basically, we do not like the comparison that's drawn there. It implies that irradiation is the same as cooking or maybe even better than cooking!

We want to say no! This is not true! We're therefore only left with options C & E.

Option C is in many ways just an expansion of the first sentence:
"The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage"..."irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods." So it doesn't add much to the argument. And besides, is this what the author is really trying to dispute here? No! The author wants to dispute the unequal comparison between irradiation and cooking with respect to how it lowers the nutritional value of the food.

Therefore C cannot be the right answer! We are left with E. And "E" is indeed the correct answer because it properly does help us understand why irradiation and cooking are NOT the same thing with respect to lowering of the nutritional value (although not perfectly, but we are not looking for a perfect answer).

The key takeaway
Understanding the argument thoroughly is the most important thing to do. Mindlessly jumping to the answer choices with just the hope of arriving at the right answer choice might get us through sometimes, but as we prepare for the test, this focus on proper understanding will help us go a longer way.

Kudos [?]: 27 [2], given: 55

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1628

Kudos [?]: 1121 [2], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2012, 14:16
2
KUDOS
6
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1121 [2], given: 109

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644

Kudos [?]: 306 [2], given: 2

Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2012, 17:02
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
metallicafan 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

By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

Hi metallicafan,

The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone!
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Kudos [?]: 306 [2], given: 2

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 339 [0], given: 269

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2012, 22:30
I am still not clear with the structure. Someone please clear my doubt as in how are we arriving at the answer?

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Kudos [?]: 339 [0], given: 269

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1393

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 03:57
KapTeacherEli wrote:
metallicafan 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

By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

Hi metallicafan,

The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone!

Thank you expert,
I fail this question because I do not realize the conclusion covered. I do not know what I look for in the answer choices.
- evidence: radiation only harm as cooking do

prethink: look for something which shows that radiation is bad. E match.

many questions in gmatprep make us unable to realize the conclusion and we fail soon. do you have any advise for us in this situation. expert?

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 136 [1], given: 16

Location: India
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2013, 11:48
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 136 [1], given: 16

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1354

Kudos [?]: 651 [0], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2013, 22:12

_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 651 [0], given: 20

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1126

Kudos [?]: 3552 [0], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 11:58
Tough question because of negative structure. IMO: E is correct.

I think the conclusion should be: "Cooking destroys vitamin B1 more than irradiation does" is NOT correct. So every answer that does not have information regarding the reduction of vitamin B1 is out of scope.

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life --> OUT because there is nothing about the reduction of vitamin B1.

(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has --> OUT because the author does not talk about the effect.

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods --> maybe right, but it just says that cooking is the final step. No information regarding the reduction of vitamin B1 --> OUT

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is --> OUT because it is the opposite answer.

(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded --> CORRECT because it says that for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 = the reduction by irradiation + the reduction by cooking, not only by cooking. Hence, the above comparison is not valid.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3552 [0], given: 123

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 4

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2013, 05:44

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 signifi cant 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 foods’ 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 fi nal 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
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process
individually is compounded

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 19

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2013, 16:38
Answer is E, because according to proponents of irradiation, the latter is no worse than cooking (reducing Vit B1), but "E" states that both cooking and irradiation equally reduce vitamin B1.
_________________

MV
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing.” ― George S. Patton Jr

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 19

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3377

Kudos [?]: 9288 [0], given: 1169

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2013, 16:50
Merged similar post

use the search button or google to find similar questions. They are your best friends

Regards
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9288 [0], given: 1169

Intern
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2013, 10:21
This is a tough one.
The idea is to understand that we cannot compare the two methods stated in the argument - Irradiation & cooking.
This is evident from the marker however, .... misleading since _____. So, proponents say that irradiation is no worse than cooking, however ...... misleading bcoz ___?? What could be misleading?? proponents saying that irradiation is no worse than cooking.

A) sooo out of scope
B) is irrelevant to what we are looking for.
C) Trap answer. we are looking for something that is misleading and not details abut cooking and irradiation
D) Again, comparison which we arenot interested in.
E) fits in nice.
"proponents say that irrad. is no worse than cooking, however ... misleading since when you do both the effects of B1 destruction is compounded". Makes sense.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2013
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 19

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2013, 17:19
Pl mention it as a GMAT Prep Question.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 19

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 912 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2013, 21:54
The fact is beside the point SINCE Much of IRR. FOOD is eaten raw.

Since much is EATEN RAW why to compare it with the cooking at first place.

Furthermore , the FACT that IRR is no WORSE than COOKING is misleading because the combined effect of COOKING+IRR. is even worst.

Rgds,
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 912 [0], given: 322

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe   [#permalink] 18 Sep 2013, 21:54

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by