It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 05:38

### 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: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Which of the following most logically completes the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 01:41
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 743

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Location: Dallas, Texas

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 02:12
E - both processes have a compounded effect.
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 494

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 02:13
My pick is C

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1553

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 1

Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 09:18
I pick E.

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 11:35
E it is.

Conclusion is trying to say that the proponetâ€™s argument is misleading
So a choice that reiterates the effect of irradiation will be a logical completion.
_________________

AimHigher

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Re: CR [ Logically Complete ] [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2006, 04:18
johnycute 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

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 264

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Location: Sing/ HK

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2006, 04:21
C for me
_________________

Impossible is nothing

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Location: uk

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2006, 08:14

It is the proponents who will be gaining and so they are the ones who are misleading with their argument.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 258

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 0

Location: California

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2006, 16:47
I chose C.. what's OA?

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 243

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: Albuquerque, NM

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2006, 20:55
A and E both out of scope, I chose C

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 358

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2006, 21:36
E makes more sense to me ...

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading ....... that it is not eaten raw and cooking adds further loss in vitamins

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2231

Kudos [?]: 377 [0], given: 0

Re: CR [ Logically Complete ] [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2006, 06:40
johnycute 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 _______.

Fact 2: Irradiation destroys nutritional value of foods.
Argument : It's no worse than cooking (cooking destroys some nutritional value of foods).
Counter argument:
For foods that are eaten raw, there won't be any cooking, but irradiation will lower the nutrition value compared to otherwise;
For foods that will be cooked, the effects from irradiation and cooking will be compounded and thus irradiation lowers the nutrition value compared to no irradiation.
In other words, irradiation is bad to nutrition value of food, and the fact that its effect size is similar to cooking is irrelevent.

This would be the complete argument of the passage. The two "since" indicate that the two clauses are parallel, one regards raw food (fruits etc) and the other natually flows to be "non-raw food", ie. foods that need to be cooked.
_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

Kudos [?]: 377 [0], given: 0

Re: CR [ Logically Complete ]   [#permalink] 13 Dec 2006, 06:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by