Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.
Login or Register
 

Irradiation

This topic has 5 member replies
sam2304 GMAT Titan
Joined
26 Apr 2011
Posted:
1239 messages
Followed by:
24 members
Thanked:
228 times
Test Date:
26/06/2012
Target GMAT Score:
720
GMAT Score:
680
Irradiation Post Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:42 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    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

    Can someone explain me what is given and what is asked ? I got way too confused with this question. I didn't understand what we are supposed to do. Sad

    _________________
    Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
    http://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/

    Thanked by: GmatKiss
    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    sureshkanagala Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    05 Apr 2012
    Posted:
    3 messages
    Post Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:34 am
    I think answer is E.

    The passage says that irradiated food is either eaten raw or .....
    So it's not cooked. The only option which talks about cooking irradiated food is E

    GMAT Kolaveri Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
    Joined
    23 Mar 2012
    Posted:
    286 messages
    Followed by:
    6 members
    Thanked:
    59 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    730
    Post Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:15 am
    Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, [We have to argue against irradiation]

    We have to use argument structure in order to find the correct AO.
    Correc AO: E

    _________________
    Regards and Thanks,
    Vinoth@GMAT Kolaveri
    https://www.facebook.com/GmatKolaveri
    http://gmatkolaveri.tumblr.com/

    Click the thank you button if you like my reply Smile

    GmatKiss GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    26 Jul 2011
    Posted:
    2790 messages
    Followed by:
    41 members
    Thanked:
    205 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    700+
    GMAT Score:
    640
    Post Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:30 pm
    Good one, IMO: E

    klmehta03 Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
    Joined
    05 Sep 2010
    Posted:
    74 messages
    Thanked:
    3 times
    Post Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:02 am
    I agree and IMO is E , but can any one explain why the answer is not A. IS it out of context? please explain

    patanjali.purpose GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    03 Apr 2011
    Posted:
    784 messages
    Followed by:
    10 members
    Thanked:
    112 times
    Post Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:52 am
    sam2304 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 _______.

    Can someone explain me what is given and what is asked ? I got way too confused with this question. I didn't understand what we are supposed to do. Sad
    IRRIDATION destroys Bacteria; IRRIDATION destroys Vitamin; IRRIDATION is NO WORSE THAN Cooking;

    Proponents conclusion: Irridation is NOT BAD

    Then comes "However,.."

    Mark the TRANSITION WORD "HOWEVER" coming immediately after PROPONENTS THEORY - the presence of HOWEVER CLEARLY shows we need to show something against PROPONENTS THEORY. In order words, we have to show SOMETHING OPPOSITE OF what proponents think. That is, we have to pick an option that shows "IRRIDATION IS BAD". With this we should check each option. E is pop-up.

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 varun289 34 topics
    2 killerdrummer 22 topics
    3 sana.noor 21 topics
    4 guerrero 14 topics
    5 sanaa.rizwan 14 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    200 posts
    2 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    135 posts
    3 image description Jim@StratusPrep

    Stratus Prep

    106 posts
    4 image description Anju@Gurome

    Gurome

    56 posts
    5 image description Jon@Admissionado

    Admissionado

    44 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts