It is currently 23 Jun 2017, 20:58

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1662
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2012, 14:16
2
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:19) correct 50% (01:52) wrong based on 236 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 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

By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2012, 17:02
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
metallicafan 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

By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

Hi metallicafan,

The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone!
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4559
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 05:06
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
BobbyAssassinCross wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
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

Hi Chetan,

I will note your point about misleading meaning both cooking and irradiation... But when we say that irradiation is doubling the effect of cooking, it is only doing so when combined with cooking, but not on its own. Should this point not be out of scope then?

Thank you.

We are looking at irradiated food...the proponent says that irradiated food has the same effect as cooking,

1) first it can be RAW food ..
a) we say the comparison is not valid, as the effects of cooking cannot be compared and
b) WHAT we were eating without irradiation had MORE B1, as Ir.. is effecting food

2) second it is cooked food.. the proponent says that irradiated food has the same effect as cooking..
But the irradiation can be done ONLY on cooked food here, so the LOSS due to cooking cannot be avoided, BUT we are ensuring another loss of SAME amount of B1 by Irradiation... AND then proponents claim that both are equal..
_________________

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

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2012, 22:30
I am still not clear with the structure. Someone please clear my doubt as in how are we arriving at the answer?

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1413

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 03:57
KapTeacherEli wrote:
metallicafan 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

By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.

Hi metallicafan,

The proponents conclusion isn't that irradiation is "no worse than cooking." The proponents conclusion is that irradiation is good and beneficial, a claim that they support with the evidence that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Our task is to complete the author's argument--how can we weaken the assumption linking the proponents evidence to their conclusion? (E) does exactly that, pointing out that even if irradiating and cooking are comparable, doing both is worse than either alone!

Thank you expert,
I fail this question because I do not realize the conclusion covered. I do not know what I look for in the answer choices.
- conclusion: radiation is good
- evidence: radiation only harm as cooking do

prethink: look for something which shows that radiation is bad. E match.

many questions in gmatprep make us unable to realize the conclusion and we fail soon. do you have any advise for us in this situation. expert?
Manager
Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 148
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2014, 17:19
Hi all,
Can someone explain this question to me? Unable to comprehend the conclusion.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2016, 23:41
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: 184
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 03:57
can anyone explain further as to how E is the answer?
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4559
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 04:23
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

Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2016
Posts: 184
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2016, 04:58
chetan2u wrote:
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

Hi Chetan,

I will note your point about misleading meaning both cooking and irradiation... But when we say that irradiation is doubling the effect of cooking, it is only doing so when combined with cooking, but not on its own. Should this point not be out of scope then?

Thank you.
Re: Which of the following most logically completes the   [#permalink] 10 May 2016, 04:58
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
20 Which of the following most logically completes the 12 02 Jul 2016, 19:49
Which of the following most logically completes the 11 22 Mar 2012, 16:53
18 Which of the following most logically completes the 23 09 Jan 2016, 22:54
10 Which of the following most logically completes the 27 16 Apr 2016, 04:52
Which of the following most logically completes the 24 18 Jul 2012, 03:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Which of the following most logically completes the

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.