It is currently 20 Feb 2018, 22:52

### 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

Retired Moderator
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 1177
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2013, 06:24
TriColor wrote:
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

Hi Verbal Experts,
Can you please let me know what should be the proper reasoning for the correct answer E? It appears to me as the best one in the lot because others are wrong!
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 413
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2014, 12:47
My question is more on understanding the usage of sentence here..
Does
"this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
mean that
"the fact is either supporting the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
?
_________________

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.

http://gmatclub.com/forum/1000-sc-notes-at-one-place-in-one-document-with-best-of-explanations-192961.html

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 185
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
GMAT 3: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.16
WE: Consulting (Venture Capital)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2014, 00:16
My interpretation of the proponents' counter....
(1) All food is cooked and zapped of its nutrition
(2) Once a food loses its nutrition through one process, there is not much more damage that can be done by the next....(so, whats the harm in irradiation if it just going to be cooked anyhow,,,and because either initial process will have already depleted most of the nutrition, what is the harm in subjecting it to the next?....)
_________________
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2014, 21:28
This was a tough one for me. I went for C.
Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 110
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2014, 02:48
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????
Manager
Status: GMAT Instructor
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 178
Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 19:41
The irradiated food is eaten either raw or cooked. In the former case, irradiation cannot be compared to cooking, so the author says that the comparison is beside the point. But in the latter case, the cooked and irradiated food suffers a greater loss of b1.

The author doesn't say the proponents are wrong, just that their statement is misleading, because someone could think that one could combine both the processes without producing a greater net loss of b1. So, in the (common) case of cooking food, irradiating it will accentuate the losses.
_________________

EnterMBA

Director
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 21:40
1
KUDOS
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo
_________________

Join Free 4 part MBA Through GMAT Video Training Series here -
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/mba-through-gmat-video-2018

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 110
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2014, 09:39
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi.. This is OG 12 question. Thanks for your response.
May be I am thinking from a different angle. What I am trying to say is as follows:-

proponents say - "irradiation is no worse than cooking" By this they mean that take 2 samples of same food. Irradiate sample A, cook sample B. Irradiation will make lose nutrients less than or equal to the nutrients that cooking destroys. So irradiation is no worse.

Now E suggests that say Sample A was irradiated, and has lost nutrients. Cooking the same sample further will destroy more nutrients.
Similarly sample B was cooked. Irradiating it further will destroy more nutrients. Hence it is somewhat supporting the proponents..

Is it that my understanding of the premise is wrong? May be my style of thinking (my lack of knowledge) .... I was thinking that even cooked food can be radiated? I don't know!! Am I not thinking correctly?
Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 06-14-2014
GPA: 4
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2014, 00:07
However, is probably the most important word here?
From here i started treating this more of a weaken question, with the aim to weaken Proponents theory, that is the only possible way to justify the However..
A. Is out of scope
B. May be, save for later
C. we have to prove that irradiation is better than cooking , this doesn't help
D. strengthens Proponents theory
E. may be

Comparing b and e.
B. effects can be either positive or negative, it is not clear
E . definitely weakens
Director
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2014, 01:18
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
talismaaniac wrote:
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
talismaaniac wrote:
How can E be the answer because according to me, it only supports. Proponents state that 'irradiation is no worse than cooking', i.e., it is equal to or less than cooking.
E states that 'harmful effects of either irradiation or cooking, individually, are compounding.' i.e., both have same kind of effect, both are harmful equally, i.e. irradiation is no worse??? no differentiation.????

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi.. This is OG 12 question. Thanks for your response.
May be I am thinking from a different angle. What I am trying to say is as follows:-

proponents say - "irradiation is no worse than cooking" By this they mean that take 2 samples of same food. Irradiate sample A, cook sample B. Irradiation will make lose nutrients less than or equal to the nutrients that cooking destroys. So irradiation is no worse.

Now E suggests that say Sample A was irradiated, and has lost nutrients. Cooking the same sample further will destroy more nutrients.
Similarly sample B was cooked. Irradiating it further will destroy more nutrients. Hence it is somewhat supporting the proponents..

Is it that my understanding of the premise is wrong? May be my style of thinking (my lack of knowledge) .... I was thinking that even cooked food can be radiated? I don't know!! Am I not thinking correctly?

Hey,
Let me explain this with an example argument.

Group A: Irradiation is no worse than cooking in the respect that it reduces nutrients.
Now the problem here is that irradiation serves a purpose that cooking might go beyond. (irradiation doesn't cook food).

so Group B says: Hold on; firstly raw consumable food will not be cooked, so this comparison makes no sense in this case.
Secondly; If you are going to irradiate food that is cooked, you lose nutrients when you cook and lose further more nutrients when you irradiate them!

Therefore making this comparison is misleading (because it makes it seem like irradiating food is an alternative to cooking food - which it is not!)

Hope that clarifies things!
Peo
_________________

Join Free 4 part MBA Through GMAT Video Training Series here -
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/mba-through-gmat-video-2018

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 896
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

20 Mar 2014, 23:24
Verbal Experts,

Please dare to explain this one as to why the answer is (E) not through POE but by proper line of reasoning.

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

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

VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1212
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2014, 03:57
I'm not verbal expert.. But let me give a shot at it...

First, I really do think that POE is the best way to approcah this questions. That being said I'll try to justify why E is the answer (After eliminating other choices by POE - since all the other choices are completely irrelevant or too extreme).

There are people who say that irradiation is no worse than cooking or in other words they are saying "You can irradiate your food rather than cook it since both destroy similar amounts of B1 vitamins."

So in effect, they are saying that cooking and irradiation are mutually exclusive processes. Option E addresses this by saying that if both processes are applied on the same food a lot more vitamin B1 is lost.

i.e. For eg : 2 hours of cooking food results in lesser vitamin B1 being destroyed than 1 hour cooking + 1 hour irradiation
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 110
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2014, 23:05
Hey,
Let me explain this with an example argument.

Group A: Irradiation is no worse than cooking in the respect that it reduces nutrients.
Now the problem here is that irradiation serves a purpose that cooking might go beyond. (irradiation doesn't cook food).

so Group B says: Hold on; firstly raw consumable food will not be cooked, so this comparison makes no sense in this case.
Secondly; If you are going to irradiate food that is cooked, you lose nutrients when you cook and lose further more nutrients when you irradiate them!

Therefore making this comparison is misleading (because it makes it seem like irradiating food is an alternative to cooking food - which it is not!)

Hope that clarifies things!
Peo[/quote]

Thanks buddy! I think I am not getting most of what you have written! You tried, but may be my mind is acting a little stubborn lol!
Thanks anyway! let us not irradiate this further,,
Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 18
Location: Taiwan
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.9
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 00:50
Not very intuitive question at all. Because the whole context was trying to contrast the two. While the last sentence is combining both methods.:S
_________________

Aiming for a 750. Let me know if this is possible.
Ted Chou

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2455
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2014, 21:38
tedchou12 wrote:
Not very intuitive question at all. Because the whole context was trying to contrast the two. While the last sentence is combining both methods.:S

Hi,

Yes, you are right. The argument was comparing the two and the option statement is talking about when both work together. So, we cannot have a rule around this such as "if the passage is comparing two things, we cannot talk about the effect of a combination of these two things".

This is actually the beauty of GMAT CR, which is a test of common sense logic rather than formal logic.

I think below question may throw more light on the same issue:

installing-scrubbers-in-smokestacks-and-switching-to-58530.html

Thanks
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Manager
Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 139
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2014, 16:19
Hi all,
Can someone explain this question to me? Unable to comprehend the conclusion.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7942
Location: Pune, India
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 20:44
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
TriColor wrote:
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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 14
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2014, 02:08
Hi,
The question is given as follows:

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 Bl 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 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 Bl than carefully controlled
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process
individually is compounded

I have a doubt that why option E is correct? According to the argument, two things are being compared with each other (irradiation and cooking). It means that either of them can occur at a time. Also, in the blank we have to provide a reason why irradiation is worse than cooking because through that only we will get to know proponents claim was misleading. But the option E talks about food that is both irradiated and cooked. How can we assume this since irradiation and cooking are compared here and can't occur together? Also, please explain how prethinking is applied here using logical structure.

Thanks and Regards
Tushar
Senior RC Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done!!
Joined: 29 Aug 2012
Posts: 1109
Location: India
WE: General Management (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2014, 03:07
tusharkhatri18 wrote:
Hi,
The question is given as follows:

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 Bl 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 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 Bl than carefully controlled
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process
individually is compounded

I have a doubt that why option E is correct? According to the argument, two things are being compared with each other (irradiation and cooking). It means that either of them can occur at a time. Also, in the blank we have to provide a reason why irradiation is worse than cooking because through that only we will get to know proponents claim was misleading. But the option E talks about food that is both irradiated and cooked. How can we assume this since irradiation and cooking are compared here and can't occur together? Also, please explain how prethinking is applied here using logical structure.

Thanks and Regards
Tushar

_________________
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 14
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2014, 03:07
This topic have been merged with: http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic-82933.html
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe   [#permalink] 15 Oct 2014, 03:07

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by