It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 05:01

### 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

# Which of the following most logically completes the

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 941 [0], given: 0

Location: Corea
Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 06:54
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 foodâ€™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 [?]: 941 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 11:22
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 foodâ€™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 I will go with this one because if this is true then te comparison above is misleading, that is the author is citing an alternative which has nothing in common with the first
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 [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 574

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 0

Location: San Jose, CA

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 13:59
I will go with C
The author says "this fact is either beside the point" and says why irr and cooking are unrelated. This has to be parallel to "misleading" point ....
Only C mentions that irr and cooking are not related

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 14:08
Totally C; the comparison is invalid because the reference methods are unrelated
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2004, 15:29
The cooking does not come into picture at all because most of irradiated food is eaten raw.

I dont know how (C) undermines proponents claim because the tone of the argument says that the author is trying to undermine proponents claim.

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 958

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2004, 21:00
I, first, fell for C, but finally chose E.

for foods that are irradiated and cooked B1 should get destroyed twice, but the premise says irradiation destroys all the B1 available. So what does cooking gonna destroy? Proponents of irradiation failed to take this case in consideration.

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 320

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

Location: India

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2004, 04:18
Will go for D.

The author is making an attempt to support the conclusion that irradiation is a better method for preserving food. The approach is to present a counter arguement (cooking) and then to proove it wrong and attacks the counter premise (B1), as done by choice D.

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

Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: Santa Clara

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2004, 09:24
marine 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 foodâ€™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

So we are looking for WHY IT IS MISLEADING....the first part of the argument already talks about BESIDE THE POINT which is mentioned in C

E shows why it is misleading cause it describes the negative effect. it is worse to combine the two....
_________________

"Do or do not, there is no try."
-Yoda

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Bacteria   [#permalink] 28 Sep 2004, 09:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by