It is currently 20 Feb 2018, 09:15

### 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

15 Oct 2014, 05:30
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

Hi Karishma,
Let me understand whether I got you correct -

So, author means basically (most) irradiated food would be cooked, thus increasing the loss of vitamin B1 as a combined effect of cooking and irradiation. Hence, whether irradiation is as bad as or less bad than cooking - doesn't matter(or this comparison doesn't make sense) as irrespective of this comparison loss of vitamin B1 would be compounded in food because of cooking + irradiation anyway.

Please correct me if I didn't get you right.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 8
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2014, 07:26
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

I opted D but rechecking leads to E.

Proponents say that cooking is as bad as irradiation or worse. D says cooking is worse, so D can not be misleading.wheras E says both are equally bad hence could be misleading.
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

15 Oct 2014, 20:43
bagdbmba wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

Hi Karishma,
Let me understand whether I got you correct -

So, author means basically (most) irradiated food would be cooked, thus increasing the loss of vitamin B1 as a combined effect of cooking and irradiation. Hence, whether irradiation is as bad as or less bad than cooking - doesn't matter(or this comparison doesn't make sense) as irrespective of this comparison loss of vitamin B1 would be compounded in food because of cooking + irradiation anyway.

Please correct me if I didn't get you right.

Yes, you got the basic point - the author says that either irradiated food is actually eaten raw and hence irradiated food has less nutrition compared with non irradiated food OR irradiated food is cooked and in that the loss is nutrition is more than loss of nutrition in non irradiated cooked food.
So either way, irradiation worsens our situation.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

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

Veritas Prep Reviews

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

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2014, 19:47
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
bagdbmba wrote:
Hi Karishma,
Let me understand whether I got you correct -

So, author means basically (most) irradiated food would be cooked, thus increasing the loss of vitamin B1 as a combined effect of cooking and irradiation. Hence, whether irradiation is as bad as or less bad than cooking - doesn't matter(or this comparison doesn't make sense) as irrespective of this comparison loss of vitamin B1 would be compounded in food because of cooking + irradiation anyway.

Please correct me if I didn't get you right.

Yes, you got the basic point - the author says that either irradiated food is actually eaten raw and hence irradiated food has less nutrition compared with non irradiated food OR irradiated food is cooked and in that the loss is nutrition is more than loss of nutrition in non irradiated cooked food.
So either way, irradiation worsens our situation.

Much thanks for clarifying & acknowledging.
_________________
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 584
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2015, 01:43
However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

Mood of the argument: It can be inferred that author is against the irradtion and states some important points against irradiation as seen above.
Some reasoning before I start. Irradiation have 2 positive effects: 1. It kills Bacteria 2. It retards the spoilage of the food
The proponents state that irradiation is not worse than cooking - author counters with 2 points

So, the main point here is to find [as the author is against irradiation] that irradiation is WORSE than cooking or that a negative effect of irradiation goes beyond that of cooking.

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 --> that could explain why this group of people makes such statements, but theat doen's explain the authors point why irradiation > cooking
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has --> It's not clear, as it has not been stated anywhere in the argument to be a conclusion
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods --> this one actually restates the point - irradiated food is eaten raw (so the negative effect of irradiation is still there, because cooking has not yet took place) but the authors goes further as he states this one + OR... and we need another example.
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is -> that weakens the authors point, we need smth. that strengthens his point
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded -> CORRECT. here it is, let's say, irradiation eliminates 70% of vitabin B and cooking 20% , so the overall negative effect is is greater than just to cook non irradiated food.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 338
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 01:03
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

This one is little to get at first go.
I think that besides being a logically complete type question it is also a strengthener/weakener type question
The correct option must provide additional information.

The keywords to note are-' SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE'.

The pro-irradiation brigade states that cooking also destroys a significant percentage vitamin B1.
So as per pro-irradiation brigade ,a food that is to be cooked might as well be irradiated because in any case cooking will destroy significant percentage of vitamin B1.
So whether food is irradiated or not, cooking will anyway significantly destroy vitamin B1.
So even if irradiation does that damage to raw food there is no harm because the vitamins were in anyway going to get destroyed by cooking.And NOTHING SIGNIFICANT of vitamin B1 will remain.

1. The argument is besides the point ( meaning =the pro-irradiation argument is irrelevant) because much irradiated food is eaten raw --which has already suffered damage to its vitamin B1 content due to irradiation. So cooking irradiated raw food is irrelevant because irradiated food is eaten raw.

OR

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

This option wants us to assume that since many proponents are food distributors so they are likely to make false claim. This is clearly out of scope because we simply can't say that some is telling a lie because he is telling a lie. We have no info. to assume that the food distributors have made false claims about irradiated food in the past and continue to do so.....OUT OF SCOPE.

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

This option does not bring any ADDITIONAL INFO. .The passage has already stated the above information.

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

This is a typical incorrect comparison choice. A typical GMAT wrong option trap.Also, this is no way tells that the claim made by the pro-irradiation brigade is misleading.

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

This is actually a weakener.This option weakens the stand taken by the anti-irradiation brigade.

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

Aha!!! This is the correct option. This option clearly states that cooking destroys vitamin B1 in addition to irradiation.This option tells us that even after significant damage by irradiation to vitamin B1 , cooking damages the remaining vitamin B1 further.

X causes 20% damage to A
Y causes 20% damage to A
X + Y = 20 % damage to A

Hope the above analysis is helpul.

Kudos if you like...
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 338
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 01:19
1
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

This one is littledifficult to get at first go.
I think that besides being a logically complete type question it is also a strengthener/weakener type question
The correct option must provide additional information.

The keywords to note are-' SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE'.

The pro-irradiation brigade states that cooking also destroys a significant percentage vitamin B1.
So as per pro-irradiation brigade ,a food that is to be cooked might as well be irradiated because in any case cooking will destroy significant percentage of vitamin B1.
So whether food is irradiated or not, cooking will anyway significantly destroy vitamin B1.
So even if irradiation does that damage to raw food there is no harm because the vitamins were in anyway going to get destroyed by cooking.And NOTHING SIGNIFICANT of vitamin B1 will remain.

1. The argument is besides the point ( meaning =the pro-irradiation argument is irrelevant) because much irradiated food is eaten raw --which has already suffered damage to its vitamin B1 content due to irradiation. So cooking irradiated raw food is irrelevant because irradiated food is eaten raw.

OR

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

This option wants us to assume that since many proponents are food distributors so they are likely to make false claim. This is clearly out of scope because we simply can't say that some is telling a lie because he is telling a lie. We have no info. to assume that the food distributors have made false claims about irradiated food in the past and continue to do so.....OUT OF SCOPE.

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

This option does not bring any ADDITIONAL INFO. .The passage has already stated the above information.

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

This is a typical incorrect comparison choice. A typical GMAT wrong option trap.Also, this is no way tells that the claim made by the pro-irradiation brigade is misleading.

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

This is actually a weakener.This option weakens the stand taken by the anti-irradiation brigade.

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

Aha!!! This is the correct option. This option clearly states that cooking destroys vitamin B1 in addition to irradiation.This option tells us that even after significant damage by irradiation to vitamin B1 , cooking damages the remaining vitamin B1 further.

X causes 20% damage to A
Y causes 20% damage to A
X + Y = 20 % damage to A

X causes 20 % damage to A
Y is absent.
and
X + Y = 40% damage and not 20 %

Hope the above analysis is helpul.

Kudos if you like...
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10323
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2015, 08:12
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2015
Posts: 6
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2015, 16:17
Great explanations. I fell for C, but I realized that E makes the same argument as C, but more directly. C led me to conclude the same thing as E in my mind, but I misread E in a rush and missed the connection. Great problem!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 586
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2015, 10:07
VeritasPrepKarishma your solution is the only solution that made sense to me.

Im still left with one Question .

Our Aim in this question is to Negate this. "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"

All the explanations (and even my thought process) were trying to say Cooking doesn't reduce the vitamins in the food. Its only your solution that says - Cooking also reduces the vitamins , but Irradiation is still worse.

Because its either Irradiated and eaten Raw or Irradiated + cooked. - great totally makes sense.

My Question comes here.

Irradiated food eaten Raw Vs Cooked Food. : with Our analysis we know both reduce vitamins. So does that mean for atleast few scenarios both reduce vitamins , so irradiated food is no worse than cooked food (for this scenario) ?
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

18 Aug 2015, 00:03
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
RaviChandra wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma your solution is the only solution that made sense to me.

Im still left with one Question .

Our Aim in this question is to Negate this. "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking"

All the explanations (and even my thought process) were trying to say Cooking doesn't reduce the vitamins in the food. Its only your solution that says - Cooking also reduces the vitamins , but Irradiation is still worse.

Because its either Irradiated and eaten Raw or Irradiated + cooked. - great totally makes sense.

My Question comes here.

Irradiated food eaten Raw Vs Cooked Food. : with Our analysis we know both reduce vitamins. So does that mean for atleast few scenarios both reduce vitamins , so irradiated food is no worse than cooked food (for this scenario) ?

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

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

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Status: Preparing Applications and looking for consultants
Joined: 25 Jun 2015
Posts: 8
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V30
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.44
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2015, 11:34
have to admit that at first i was really going to bash this question left and right for not providing a single logical explaination.
Later i realized why have they even bothered to include E. I mean it is self understood.

if cooking kills 10 units of VB1 and irradiation kills 10 units of VB1 then both will kill 20 units of VB1. (thanks genius for pointing that out).

Well...WAIT!
Can an irradiated food be cooked before eating? PAUSIBLE!
Can a cooked food be irradiated before eating? IMPOSSIBLE!...as stated in the answer itself.
If irradiated food is cooked, the units of VB1 which are killed will just double...this will be a nightmare for health freaks.
So obviously irradiation is BIGGER of the two evils even if individually it kills the same units of VB1....which as presented in argument is completely misleading the audience by letting them think about the same.

Quote:
Sometimes you find the truth standing right in front of you.
Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 46
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2015, 02:19
sudeep wrote:
here there is a need to prove that argument "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is misleading.

3 foods: (there could be more but that would be out of scope)

radiated + not cooked(raw) - covered in "this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
only cooked - (not relevant I think in this context, as effect of radiation can't be estimated or compared.
radiated + cooking - This is the one we need to look into as in option E.

Hi Sudeep how does point 3rd clarifies ?
We have to prove here is that irradiation not worse than cooking (either equally worse or less worse) so we have to prove that irradiation is worse than cooking to prove the sentence misleading. if a food is both radiated and cooked then how does it proves that irradiation is worse than cooking ? It can prove that they are equally worse.

Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 46
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2015, 02:28
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

Hi Karishma

so this implies that irradiation + cooking is worse than cooking but how does is it implying that irradiation is worse than cooking, which actually needs to be true in order to prove the proponents as misleading.

Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Posts: 16
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 07:35
sap wrote:
billnepill wrote:
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

I don't understand how the compounded reduction of vitamin B1 done by both processes makes the argument by the proponents of irradiation misleading.

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

It might be the case that irradiation reduces B1 levels by 10 % and cooking by 50 % totaling 60 % reduction. That would mean, proponents are right. Irradiation isn't worse than cooking.
The author seems to accept the possibility that proponents would have to be implying that there is no additional reduction of vitamin B1 when products undergo both processes. In other words, the harm done by irradiation, would not be significant since cooking will do much more. Hence, their argument is misleading.

However, there are no grounds for this reasoning of the author, since arguments about both irradiated and cooked products weren't made by the proponents. Furthermore, as the author pointed out, much of the irradiated food is eaten raw, making the possibility of
Quote:
Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.

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

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

Understand this

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

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

DO WE COOK FOOD TWICE TO EAT IT ? NO !

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

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

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

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

Makes sense ?

Hi, I have a better way of understanding this. Check this out.
When the proponents said that "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking", they meant that cooking, like irradiation, reduce vatamin. The point is not about the comparison of the amount of loss on vatamin. It's about the fact that cooking reduce vatamin as well.
In other words, since food will be cooked anyway and cooking reduce vatamin just like irradiation, the loss of vatamin is already doomed, then why do you care about the loss of vatamin caused by irradiation? Cooking could have done that anyway and could have caused an even greater loss of vatamin.
That is why the argument says 1) not all food has to be cooked 2) if food has to be cooked and irradiated, the loss of vitamin is compounded.
I believe the tricky part is the way they articulate choice E: the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded. I had difficulty understanding "associated with either process individually". If take this phrase away, I think more of us could better understand E and choose the right answer.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 361
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2016, 02:02
For tough CR questions, you need to get at least a suggestion of the answer in your mind to have a good chance of picking the answer.
In understanding the question stem your prethink might seem like this: WHAT OF THE OTHER MUCH THAT ARE NOT EATEN RAW? (Remember the author is weakening a fact) What's the fact? The proponents' support for irradiation.
Only C, D, and E address the point..
But only E weakens

If I understand the question stem, picking the answer choice becomes fun for me.
The hell is the question stem not the options.
If I get the intent of the question stem, then I've no thinking to do in the options.
I just POE them off looking for the one that will do the job in mind.

Posted from my mobile device
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10323
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2016, 03:52
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10323
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2016, 22:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2016
Posts: 220
Location: India
GPA: 3.2
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 02:57
can anyone explain further as to how E is the answer?
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5658
Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 03:23
BobbyAssassinCross wrote:
can anyone explain further as to how E is the answer?

Hi,
the part we are interested in answering is
Quote:
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_________.

Quote:
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

1) When we say MISLEADING, the reason has to be concerned with BOTH cooking and irradiation..
So, you can eliminate Choices which do not fall in this category.- A and B can be eliminated

2) The reason has to be against the point of proponents that there is equal damage of nutrients in two process -cooking and irradiation..
So , any choice not falling in this category can be eliminated...
C does not speak of common effect..
D is rather strengthening proponent's views..

Left is E..
what is it doing-

Quote:
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded..

We have already spoken of the food that is eaten RAW that the comparison is not valid in these foods..
BUT what about irradiated food that is cooked. This food has a compounded effect -- radiation lost due to cooking and then further loss due to irradiation

so saying that irradiation has the same effect as cooking has is misleading. Because irradiation doubles the loss
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

BANGALORE/-

Re: The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe   [#permalink] 10 May 2016, 03:23

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by