Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 18:23

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1409
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 388 [2] , given: 1

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

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 13:21
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:19) correct 52% (01:33) wrong based on 459 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
(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
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 640
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 554 [3] , given: 6

### Show Tags

01 May 2009, 00:58
3
KUDOS
Nice question. Here is my understanding...

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
_______.
But fact is:-
above statement is
1) beside the point - WHY?
because: much irradiated food is eaten raw - Ok, so if we are consuming RAW, there will be no point to do such comparison. Hence, indeed beside the point.
because:
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
- Not talking why misleading, rather going too far and stating some other aspect
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
- Not talking why misleading. Certain kinds of cooking are horrible but how can that extrapolate the comparison.
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
- E misleads people who cook foods after irradiation. E says that people actually get no nutrition (B1) from those food...
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 737
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 693 [1] , given: 99

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 13:30
1
KUDOS
tough one ... not able to draw anything quick ... but I go with C ...
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 254
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 156 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

02 May 2009, 04:37
1
KUDOS
IMO E

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 --> irrelevant
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect
that irradiation has --> out of scope
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas
irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods --> irrelevant to the respect of reducing vitamin B1 of each individual process
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than
carefully controlled irradiation is --> weaken the counter-argument of proponent of irradiation
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded -->best choice. The intention of the proponent is that irradiation reduces no more Vitamin B1 than cooking does, or they cause a similar outcome of reducing Vit B1. So, if we want to show that the proponents are misleading, we must show that they may observe a misleading fact to reach to unfair conclusion. The fact that the reduction of vitamin B1 of a food both irradiated and cooked is similar in each process to the other does not mean that the 2 reduce the same amount of Vitamin B1 if taken individually, but means that such reduction is of a mixed combination from irradiation to cooking. Therefore, because it is of a combination from the two processes, we must take each process individually to reach to the most exact outcome: whether irradiation individually causes higher reduction of vitamin B1 than cooking does
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 13:48
Conclusion: has to say something different about these 2 in terms of quality/nutritional value/etc.

E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated
with either process individually is compounded

So E works since irradiation => more Vitamins to be lost compared to cooking.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 818
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 19:16
E for me
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 09:29
I think both D and E are close. I'll go with D

IMO, E is wrong. The author wants to prove the proponents of irradiation wrong. The proponents of irradiation say that 'in relation to the reduction in vitamin B1 irradiation is no worse than cooking' - which means cooking also reduces B1 percentage.

This is clearly described in D. E wrongly says that irradiating + cooking individually compound the reduction of B1

Cheers,
Unplugged
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 277
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 12:53
unplugged wrote:
I think both D and E are close. I'll go with D

IMO, E is wrong. The author wants to prove the proponents of irradiation wrong. The proponents of irradiation say that 'in relation to the reduction in vitamin B1 irradiation is no worse than cooking' - which means cooking also reduces B1 percentage.

This is clearly described in D. E wrongly says that irradiating + cooking individually compound the reduction of B1

Cheers,
Unplugged

doesn't D reiterate what the stimulus says?

"irradiation is no worse than cooking" . This means that the extent of loss of B1 during cooking is more or equal to that during irradiation. This is exactly what D says, isn't it?

I think E is the best option here.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 489
Schools: Kellogg, MIT, Michigan, Berkeley, Marshall, Mellon
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 13:54
Hi mates,

IMO C

since we have to look for an argument that says that cooking is not worse than irradiation...

OA and Source?

Cheers
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/johnlewis1980-s-profile-feedback-is-more-than-welcome-80538.html

I'm not linked to GMAT questions anymore, so, if you need something, please PM me

I'm already focused on my application package

My experience in my second attempt
http://gmatclub.com/forum/p544312#p544312
My experience in my third attempt
http://gmatclub.com/forum/630-q-47-v-28-engineer-non-native-speaker-my-experience-78215.html#p588275

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 416
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 395 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 02:12
I'll go with C
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 63
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 02:54
A tough question to crack, thanks for this

IMO D, since this is the only option which weakens the stimulus.
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 101
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 04:04
Conclusion: this fact (namely that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking) is either beside the point or else misleading.

A. description of proponents is out of scope
B. other efects are out of scope, conclusion of the argument is about one effect - lowering the nutritional value of many foods
C.description of cooking and irradiation in the mentiond respect does not refer to issue of conclusion
D. out of scope
E. correct one - because it shows the case when effect of cooking does nor equal to effect of irradiation.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1409
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 388 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 09:40
OA given is E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 20:07
What is the source?

Do you have OE?

Cheers,
Unplugged
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2009, 07:29
Isn't this an OG question? This one sounds familiar...
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 May 2009, 07:46
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 138
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2010, 16:13
E is correct
Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2010, 22:40
But in the question it does not mention that irradiation happened on the same food after or prior to cooking. I understand E but I don't understand how it applies because no case of simultaneous cooking and irradiation was mentioned in the question.
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 166
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2010, 01:50
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

it is the most natural choice among all others
Manager
Status: A continuous journey of self-improvement is essential for every person -Socrates
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2011, 21:08
unplugged wrote:
What is the source?

Do you have OE?

Cheers,
Unplugged

Isn't this an OG question? This one sounds familiar...

I think this is a question from OG-12. Question No.-99. Just yesterday I solved this question.

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Which of the following most logically completes the 4 12 Jan 2013, 19:07
1 Which of the following most logically completes the 5 14 Oct 2013, 08:58
11 Which of the following most logically completes the 9 10 May 2016, 05:06
13 Which of the following most logically completes the 13 14 May 2015, 07:02
1 Which of the following most logically completes the 4 07 May 2017, 06:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by