The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. Howe

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

IMO - E

We need to complete the last senetnce is - "However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is ten raw, or else misleading, since _______."


What is the Fact here? Fact is Irriadiation is no worse than cooking. Cooking destroys the Vitamin B1. Irriadiation also destroys VB1. Conslusion made is Irriadation is no worse than cooking. By taking this conclusion a customer should think that if irriadation is done then there is NO issue and customer should buy irridiated food.

So as per the last sentence if irridiated food is eaten Raw then it will have less VB1 but it is still ok because after cooking also some VB is reduced. So if you eat raw irridated food then it is fine, OTHERWISE you are misleaded because after cooking you have VB1 reduced by irridiated and VB2 recuded by cooking. So irridation is making food more worse after cooking.

Don't overlook the word "misleading". The stimulus says that irradiation does not deplete the food of Vit B1 anymore than what cooking does. Okay, but what if the irradiated food is supposed to be cooked and not eaten raw? E says that depletion of Vit. B1 increases as the effect of irradiation and cooking on Vit B1 is additive. This implies that irradiation of food that needs to be cooked makes Vit B1 lower than just irradiated food or just cooked food. So, irradiating certain kinds of foods could make matters worse for Vit B1.
Hence, E it is.

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
_______.
Proponents say: irradiation = cooking
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.
2) misleading - WHY?
because:
A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
- Not talking why misleading
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
- Not talking why misleading
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...

here there is a need to prove that argument "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is misleading.

3 foods: (there could be more but that would be out of scope)

radiated + not cooked(raw) - covered in "this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw"
only cooked - (not relevant I think in this context, as effect of radiation can't be estimated or compared.
radiated + cooking - This is the one we need to look into as in option E.

There is already a lot of discussion here on what the correct answer is, so I won't go into that. I also originally got "C" even though it was wrong. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out WHY I made the mistake and what was it about the question that misdirected me so much. There have been far too many times that I've just forced an explanation down my throat when I got a question wrong. The result? The lesson doesn't stick when I re-do the question, and it doesn't help me apply the lessons to other questions. Here are my thoughts and lessons from this question; I hope they help others see a more natural way of seeing the right answer.

"Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is..."

Ah! Upon much reflection, this is what I missed. In CR passages, we're almost always trying to find the conclusion. In this case we have the anti-conclusion...the central point that we are trying to dispute. I really needed to think about this fact deeply to see the "natural" reason why 'E' is the right answer.

The anti-conclusion that we want to dispute is: "Irradiation is no worse than cooking."

Basically, we do not like the comparison that's drawn there. It implies that irradiation is the same as cooking or maybe even better than cooking!

We want to say no! This is not true! We're therefore only left with options C & E.

Option C is in many ways just an expansion of the first sentence:
"The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage"..."irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods." So it doesn't add much to the argument. And besides, is this what the author is really trying to dispute here? No! The author wants to dispute the unequal comparison between irradiation and cooking with respect to how it lowers the nutritional value of the food.

Therefore C cannot be the right answer! We are left with E. And "E" is indeed the correct answer because it properly does help us understand why irradiation and cooking are NOT the same thing with respect to lowering of the nutritional value (although not perfectly, but we are not looking for a perfect answer).

The key takeaway
Understanding the argument thoroughly is the most important thing to do. Mindlessly jumping to the answer choices with just the hope of arriving at the right answer choice might get us through sometimes, but as we prepare for the test, this focus on proper understanding will help us go a longer way.

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!

Hello,
The completed argument needs to suggest that the perspective that "irradiation of food is no less harmful than cooking" is misleading.
Let's look at the answer options:

Option A talks about the supporters of irradiated food : Irrelevant - Eliminate
Option B does not clearly specify if this effect is a negative or a positive one - Eliminate
Option C does not specify the significance (negative) of irradiation - Eliminate
Option D This option clearly goes against the intention of the argument - Eliminate
Option E This suggests that when foods are both cooked and irradiated nutrition loss is compounded, This fits well in context as one of the aspects discussed is that of eating the food raw and the other should be about cooked food. And here we realise that irradiating cooked food is more harmful than just cooking food (more nutrients lost)

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi,

Yes, you are right. The argument was comparing the two and the option statement is talking about when both work together. So, we cannot have a rule around this such as "if the passage is comparing two things, we cannot talk about the effect of a combination of these two things".

This is actually the beauty of GMAT CR, which is a test of common sense logic rather than formal logic.

I think below question may throw more light on the same issue:

installing-scrubbers-in-smokestacks-and-switching-to-58530.html

Thanks
Chiranjeev

This one is little to get at first go.
I think that besides being a logically complete type question it is also a strengthener/weakener type question
I think so because we need to support the views of the anti-irradiation brigade and weaken the views of pro-irradiation brigade. (... brigade sounds good )
The correct option must provide additional information.

The keywords to note are-' SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE'.

The pro-irradiation brigade states that cooking also destroys a significant percentage vitamin B1.
So as per pro-irradiation brigade ,a food that is to be cooked might as well be irradiated because in any case cooking will destroy significant percentage of vitamin B1.
So whether food is irradiated or not, cooking will anyway significantly destroy vitamin B1.
So even if irradiation does that damage to raw food there is no harm because the vitamins were in anyway going to get destroyed by cooking.And NOTHING SIGNIFICANT of vitamin B1 will remain.

The anti-irradiation brigade counters the above argument by stating two things-
1. The argument is besides the point ( meaning =the pro-irradiation argument is irrelevant) because much irradiated food is eaten raw --which has already suffered damage to its vitamin B1 content due to irradiation. So cooking irradiated raw food is irrelevant because irradiated food is eaten raw.

OR

2.The argument is misleading ( meaning = pro-irradiation brigade is making false claim)-

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life-

This option wants us to assume that since many proponents are food distributors so they are likely to make false claim. This is clearly out of scope because we simply can't say that some is telling a lie because he is telling a lie. We have no info. to assume that the food distributors have made false claims about irradiated food in the past and continue to do so.....OUT OF SCOPE.

B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has-

This option does not bring any ADDITIONAL INFO. .The passage has already stated the above information.

C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

This is a typical incorrect comparison choice. A typical GMAT wrong option trap.Also, this is no way tells that the claim made by the pro-irradiation brigade is misleading.

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

This is actually a weakener.This option weakens the stand taken by the anti-irradiation brigade.

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

Aha!!! This is the correct option. This option clearly states that cooking destroys vitamin B1 in addition to irradiation.This option tells us that even after significant damage by irradiation to vitamin B1 , cooking damages the remaining vitamin B1 further.


The pro-irradiation argument is-

X causes 20% damage to A
Y causes 20% damage to A
X + Y = 20 % damage to A

Hope the above analysis is helpul.

Kudos if you like...

Yes that is correct but note that the author is comparing irradiated food with food that is not irradiated. He is against irradiation and we have to find the option that suits his opinion. He says that irradiation being no worse than cooking is EITHER beside the point because we would not have cooked that food anyway (e.g. apples - we eat them raw. If we irradiate them, their nutrition value decreases and hence irradiation is bad) OR misleading because we still cook after irradiation (e.g. brinjal - cooking reduces nutrition but irradiation + cooking reduces even more nutrition). So the author is saying that in any case, irradiation is bad.

Hi,
the part we are interested in answering is




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-

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

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..

The tone of the last sentence is negative. So, we have to look for an answer choice that states a negative aspect about irradiation.

(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 - Opposite.

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods - Opposite.

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is - Irrelevant

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

Answer: E

+1 for option E. My take:

This question asks us to complete the argument. The argument says that irradiation kills bacteria and retards spoilage. There is a disadvantage however associated with this method i.e. Vitamin B1 getting destroyed. Proponents claim that no worse than cooking in this regard. i.e, cooking is similar to irradiation or even worse. The author however feels that the aforementioned point is either beside the point or misleading. Why is it misleading ? The answer to this question lies in the correct answer option.

Pre-think :

Think of an option that proves that the proponent's stand is misleading.

POE :

Option a: Irrelevant
Option b : Goes against the "misleading direction !"
Option c : We are not concerned about the shelf life
Option d : We are concerned about irradiation and not about cooking
Option e : Convoluted looking choice .. but look at it. It says that if you both cook and irradiate the food , reduction in B1 associated with either process is compounded. This makes the proponents statement appear misleading. Hence this is close to our line of reasoning.

Hence option E is the correct answer.

Okay, let's take this baby down. Some explanations in this forum focus exclusively on how to answer specific, isolated questions. But remember: the GMAT is a critical-thinking test. For those of you studying for the GMAT, you will want to internalize strategies that help you to identify and solve entire classes of questions. Pattern recognition is key. The tactics I will show you here will be useful for numerous questions, not just this one. This solution is going to walk through not just what the answer is, but how to strategically think about it. Here is the full "GMAT Jujitsu" for this question:

This problem highlights a common tactic of the GMAT: trying to hide what type of question it actually is. In this case, the question stem is vague enough you can’t really tell what problem type it is. At first glance, the phrase "most logically completes the argument" makes this sound like the question is looking for a conclusion, but this is not the case at all. We must fill in the blank. With such “Fill in the Blank” type questions, there is a strategy that helps you to identify the problem type. I call this “Find the Flow” in my classes. In the original problem, you can see that the stimulus ends with an underlined portion, preceded by the word “since.” “Since” is a type of leverage word I call a “Conclusion Conjunction.” While such words are directly attached to the conclusion, they actually precede a premise used to support the conclusion. Thus, when the stimulus says, “This fact… is misleading, since _____”, our conclusion is “the fact is misleading”, and the phrase that fills in the blank is a supporting premise. Remember: premises support conclusions.

Since we are looking for a missing premise, we know that this is a “Strengthen” question type. This defines our strategy, because it tells us we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens or justifies the conclusion. We need to focus on what the problem is asking. In this case, we are looking for a statement that explains why the statement “irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking” is actually “misleading.” That becomes the logical gap on which we need to focus.

Let’s look at the answer choices, “minding that gap.”

Answer choice “A” falls to connect the logical dots. Talking about the motives of “food distributors” is a classic ad hominem attack. It attacks the potential motives of the proponents of the food distributors instead of focusing on the actual logic. "A" does nothing to explain why it would be "misleading" to say that irradiation is the same as cooking.

Answer choice “B” tries to use your own biases against you. A beautiful trap with this question is that it tempts your brain to start filling in extra information. Some test takers see the word “irradiation” and start thinking of nuclear bombs and mutant, three-headed dogs (arguably making irradiation “worse than cooking.”) But such effects are not mentioned in the question stem. And, even if they were, the focus of the question is on why it is misleading to say that irradiation is no worse than cooking when it comes to lowering the nutritional value of foods. Other possible effects that are unrelated to lowering the nutritional value are irrelevant here. In my classes, I call these types of traps "Distracting Detours" because such answer choices not only make us imply extra information not specifically mentioned in the question but also get us focused on other things besides the specific logical gap. Answer choice “B” can be eliminated.

Answer choice “C” also fails to mind the logical gap. The fact that cooking and irradiation serve different purposes doesn’t explain why irradiation is somehow worse than just cooking. This doesn’t show the proponents’ claim is "misleading."

Answer choice “D” goes the opposite direction of what we want (another classic GMAT fake-out.) It tells us that some cooking is “more destructive” than irradiation. But we are trying to undermine the phrase “irradiation is no worse than cooking”. Answer choice D gives us a reason why “cooking” is worse than “irradiation”, not vice versa. Get rid of “D”.

Answer choice “E” shows how irradiation could be worse than cooking – because if you cook something irradiated, the loss of vitamin B1 is “compounded.” It minds the gap and shows why the statement “irradiation is no worse than cooking” is "misleading."

Answer choice “E” is our answer.

Now, let’s look back at this problem from the perspective of strategy. This problem can teach us several patterns seen throughout the GMAT. First, when a question requires you to "Fill in the Blank," find the flow of the logic. Premises support conclusions, which helps you to identify the direction (or flow) of the information. Then, once you identify the structure of the problem, focus EXACTLY on what the problem is asking. Many people miss Critical Reasoning questions because they rush too quickly through the interpretation of the question and miss crucial leverage words. In the case of this problem, we are looking for an answer that shows why the argument that "irradiation is no worse...than cooking" is "misleading." Focusing on the exact logical gap keeps us from falling for distracting traps and detours.

Proponents argue that that irradiation is no worse at lowering B1 content in food than cooking is and we are asked to find a reason why the proponents' argument is misleading.

(E) is the only answer that could potentially explain why the proponents are misled.

If Proponent Bob cooks irradiated food and measures the B1 content its going to produce lower B1 levels than irradiated food alone as the b1 level reduction process is compounded.

So bob could be misled into thinking that uncooked, irradiated food containing higher b1 levels - and it would - is sufficient evidence to argue that irradiated foods are better off perhaps than cooked irradiated foods.


GMATNinja - am I interpreting your detailed response correctly?

This looks spot-on!

If you say that irradiation is no worse than cooking, people might think, "Well, who cares if irradiation destroys some vitamins -- those vitamins would have been destroyed anyway when I cooked the food." But (E) tells us that cooking your irradiated food will lower the nutritional value EVEN FURTHER. So, in terms of nutritional value, you are actually better off with cooked food that has NOT been irradiated than with cooked food that HAS been irradiated.