The efficiency of microwave ovens in destroying the harmful bacteria

Question

The efficiency of microwave ovens in destroying the harmful bacteria frequently found in common foods is diminished by the presence of salt in the food being cooked. When heated in a microwave oven, the interior of unsalted food reaches temperatures high enough to kill bacteria that cause food poisoning, but the interior of salted food does not. Scientists theorize that salt effectively blocks the microwaves from heating the interior.

Which one of the following conclusions is most supported by the information above?

(A) The kinds of bacteria that cause food poisoning are more likely to be found on the exterior of food than in the interior of food.

(B) The incidence of serious food poisoning would be significantly reduced if microwave ovens were not used by consumers to cook or reheat food.

(C) The addition of salt to food that has been cooked or reheated in a microwave oven can increase the danger of food poisoning.

(D) The danger of food poisoning can be lessened if salt is not used to prepare foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven.

(E) Salt is the primary cause of food poisoning resulting from food that is heated in microwave ovens.

abhimahna · Accepted Answer

The argument is saying Adding salt to food diminishes the ability of microwave to kill harmful bacteria.

It then tells the science behind that.

Then, it says Scientists theorize that salt effectively blocks the microwaves from heating the interior.

We need to find the conclusion.

(A) The kinds of bacteria that cause food poisoning are more likely to be found on the exterior of food than in the interior of food.  : If they are found on exterior then the whole point would be weakened that it diminishes the ability of microwave to kill harmful bacteria. So, incorrect.

(B) The incidence of serious food poisoning would be significantly reduced if microwave ovens were not used by consumers to cook or reheat food.  : Wow, We are talking about Microwave role and they are saying stop using microwave. No relevance.

(C) The addition of salt to food that has been cooked or reheated in a microwave oven can increase the danger of food poisoning.   It is saying food has been cooked and then we are adding salt. But ideally we are first adding salt and then cooking it. So, this is a TRAP but a totally incorrect answer.

(D) The danger of food poisoning can be lessened if salt is not used to prepare foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven.  Yes, danger can be lessened if we donot add salt. This is what the whole argument is saying. Hence, Correct

(E) Salt is the primary cause of food poisoning resulting from food that is heated in microwave ovens. : Whether it is primary or secondary, our point is no where related.

WiziusCareers1 · Answer

The question suggests that the efficiency of the microwave decreases as the quantity of salt increases on the food that is getting heated. Why does that happen? Scientists theorise that salt has the ability to block microwaves from heating the interior of the food.

(A) The kinds of bacteria that cause food poisoning are more likely to be found on the exterior of food than in the interior of food.
 If the bacteria is on the exterior of the food, how does salt create a problem?? 
(B) The incidence of serious food poisoning would be significantly reduced if microwave ovens were not used by consumers to cook or reheat food.
 Not using microwave oven cannot be the conclusion as the argument is about microwaves.  
(C) The addition of salt to food that has been cooked or reheated in a microwave oven can increase the danger of food poisoning.
 Salt increases the danger of food poisoning?? No. As such the passage is based on the salt on food that is getting heated.  
(D) The danger of food poisoning can be lessened if salt is not used to prepare foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven.
 Yes. This is what the passage suggests.  
(E) Salt is the primary cause of food poisoning resulting from food that is heated in microwave ovens.
 The argument is not about the primary cause or secondary cause. Irrelevant.

chesstitans · Answer

C is a great trap.
There is only one premise and one conclusion in the passage even though there are 3 sentences. The first two are the main premise.

sach24x7 · Answer

Guys. Can somebody clearly explain about E?

Posted from my mobile device

chesstitans · Answer

E is obviously wrong, salt does not cause any food poisoning, and the last half of E is also wrong

Firdaus · Answer

Main conclusion of Argument is : Efficiency of M/wave to kill bacteria that causes food poisoning....presence of salt in food.

Scientists theory that salt blocks heatwaves is a derived statement from the premise : when heated in a microwave oven....salted food doesnot.

Inference: from statements,
Salt - blocks microwaves that heat the interior of food that contains bacteria ---> that causes food poisoning.
hence,
If there is less salt o rno salt used to cook food then microwaves will heat interior of food and kill bacteria. In this way danger of food poisoning can be reduced. Notice that D is along the lines of main pt of the author.

arvind910619 · Answer

Fell for C it is a trap .
If we prepared food already and we are heating why would anybody add more salt to already cooked food.
D on the other hand talks about the food yet to be prepared

jessicarahman · Answer

Hi

Would you please more clear why D)" The danger of food poisoning can be lessened if salt is not used to prepare foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven."
 is the best?
I think C is a great trap.
There is only one premise and one conclusion in the passage even though there are 3 sentences. 
Thanks

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354   iamsiddharthkapoor 
How should one approach such questions?
Should one Prethink or should jump directly to POE.
I tried to prethink but couldn't come up with anything.

nightblade354 · Answer

deveshj21 , having a handle on the question is incredibly important. It is not a requirement to prethink, per se, but you must know what the argument is saying. Prethinking is where you begin to see the assumptions being made and can attack/strengthen those areas. This will come with practice. For now, focus on your basics of learning premises/conclusion and understanding the argument. From there, see holes where they are and then attack the answer choices.

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354 
Thanks a ton for always helping me out.
I totally agree to what you have said, and consistently practice the same.
The prethinking part has started to come naturally to me by way of argument analysis, I read the question(para) discern whether it is an argument of a set of facts, then if I have discerned that the question is an argument I decide whether it is properly supported by the premises, and so on. All the credit goes to your CR guide.
But i feel that sometimes i think too much,as i did in this question.

Kritisood · Answer

(E) Salt is the  primary  cause of food poisoning resulting from food that is heated in microwave ovens. Too extreme. We cannot conclude this basis the argument.

Kritisood · Answer

(D) The danger of food poisoning can be lessened if salt is not used to prepare foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven.

The best option after POE. Acc to the argument, salt acts as a barrier for heat to reach the interior and kill bacteria. Hence, we may conclude that the danger of food poisoning (due to the presence of bacteria) would lessen if salt isn't used in the foods that are to be cooked in a microwave oven.

Bubbasch · Answer

C is a brilliant trap!! Fell for that even after spending a significant amount of time choosing between C and D. The phrase "addition of salt to food that has been cooked or reheated in a microwave oven" where the food has been reheated in microwave oven first and then salt was added after the reheating/cooking-this completely changes the view. Initially, I read it as salt was already added prior to the cooking/reheating, if so then C would have been the right answer choice than D.

The efficiency of microwave ovens in destroying the harmful bacteria

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The efficiency of microwave ovens in destroying the harmful bacteria

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards