Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
100%
(01:34)
correct 0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Hmmm I tend to agree with E. It says that the fact is either beside the point (for foods taht are not cooked) or misleading (for foods that are cooked).
I tend to go for (C) earlier but after I read HongHus's post, I will go for (E). I agree that (C) does point out those two are seperated processes but it does not tell why the fact is "misleading." (E) is better by saying that "the fact" is "beside the point" in two cases (either or - statement):
(1) uncooked foods
(2) cooked foods
Misleading means making people think otherwise. I do not think that by saying radiation kills same amount of nutricient as cooking would lead people to think that its proponent do not benefit from it.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.