• Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh

OG 12 Qs# 99 : The irradiation of food kills bacteria and

This topic has 5 expert replies and 5 member replies
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
8

OG 12 Qs# 99 : The irradiation of food kills bacteria and

Post Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:41 am
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 signifi cant 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.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods’ 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



@ Experts - I'd like to know how E is the correct answer ?

Per the Proponents of irradiation,irradiation is no worse than cooking in given context. Hence, we can say that irradiation is either as harmful as cooking in reducing V-B1 OR less harmful than cooking. Right ?
So, how it helps to establish the misleading fact ? Because in either case(irradiation is equally harmful or less harmful to cooking) the combined effect of irradiation and cooking would be more than each of these two effects(by irradiation and cooking) taken separately. How it's misleading then ? Having serious trouble in understanding the logic. Please help!

Also, for option A - if we consider the logic that Proponents of irradiation misled us to gain on their own, then how A could be wrong ?

Request verbal experts to share detail analysis and also kindly clarify why E is correct,but NOT A ?

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
Top Reply
Post Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:31 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Could you please elaborate - what exactly you mean by " By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated." How do we get to know this as it's not explicitly mentioned in the argument?
A proponent is an ADVOCATE.
Thus, proponents of irradiation -- by definition -- ADVOCATE the use of irradiation.

Quote:
And what does exactly "no worse than" mean ? Does it not mean either as bad as or less bad than cooking ? So in other words, NOT MORE BAD than cooking. Correct me please if I'm wrong.
Your understanding seems to be correct.
Irradiation is no worse than cooking implies the following:
If cooking decreases the amount of B1 by 40%, then irradiation decreases the amount of B1 by not more than 40%.

Quote:
Now as you say " Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.", how we can be sure cooking + irradiation " DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss" ? It well could be that this loss is just aggravated (hence compounding),but not actually getting doubled by cooking + irradiation. Right ?

Look forward to hear from you.
virtually implies that a statement is almost -- but not quite -- true.
Thus, virtually doubling implies that -- used together -- irradiation and cooking would probably not quite double the loss of B1.
But whether the loss will actually double is beside the point.
The proponents' statement is misleading for the reason offered in my post above:
Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Thanked by: RBBmba@2014, kamalj
Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
8
Top Reply
Post Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:43 am
Thanks Mitch.
Apologies for late revert. I was travelling for last couple of weeks for job purpose.

Now this makes complete sense to me - "Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.". Thank you Sir.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Post Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:31 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Could you please elaborate - what exactly you mean by " By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated." How do we get to know this as it's not explicitly mentioned in the argument?
A proponent is an ADVOCATE.
Thus, proponents of irradiation -- by definition -- ADVOCATE the use of irradiation.

Quote:
And what does exactly "no worse than" mean ? Does it not mean either as bad as or less bad than cooking ? So in other words, NOT MORE BAD than cooking. Correct me please if I'm wrong.
Your understanding seems to be correct.
Irradiation is no worse than cooking implies the following:
If cooking decreases the amount of B1 by 40%, then irradiation decreases the amount of B1 by not more than 40%.

Quote:
Now as you say " Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.", how we can be sure cooking + irradiation " DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss" ? It well could be that this loss is just aggravated (hence compounding),but not actually getting doubled by cooking + irradiation. Right ?

Look forward to hear from you.
virtually implies that a statement is almost -- but not quite -- true.
Thus, virtually doubling implies that -- used together -- irradiation and cooking would probably not quite double the loss of B1.
But whether the loss will actually double is beside the point.
The proponents' statement is misleading for the reason offered in my post above:
Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Thanked by: RBBmba@2014, kamalj
Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
8
Post Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:43 am
Thanks Mitch.
Apologies for late revert. I was travelling for last couple of weeks for job purpose.

Now this makes complete sense to me - "Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.". Thank you Sir.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Post Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:40 am
richachampion wrote:
Can you help me with option D.
D: Certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is.
By stating that irradiation is less destructive than certain kinds of cooking, this option seems to strengthen the PREMISE that irradiation is no worse...than cooking.
A premise is a FACT.
It cannot be strengthened or weakened.
Eliminate any answer choice that attempts to strengthen or weaken a premise.
Eliminate D.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Thanked by: kamalj
Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.

Top Member

richachampion Legendary Member
Joined
21 Jul 2015
Posted:
697 messages
Followed by:
25 members
Upvotes:
32
Test Date:
∞ →
Target GMAT Score:
760
GMAT Score:
740
Most Thanked Member Most Responsive Member
Post Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:04 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
Can you help me with option D.

_________________
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
richacrunch2@gmail.com
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Thanked by: vivek61999
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
8
Post Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:14 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
Hi Mitch,
Thanks for your reply.
Could you please elaborate - what exactly you mean by " By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated." How do we get to know this as it's not explicitly mentioned in the argument ?

And what does exactly "no worse than" mean ? Does it not mean either as bad as or less bad than cooking ? So in other words, NOT MORE BAD than cooking. Correct me please if I'm wrong.

Now as you say " Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.", how we can be sure cooking + irradiation " DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss" ? It well could be that this loss is just aggravated (hence compounding),but not actually getting doubled by cooking + irradiation. Right ?

Look forward to hear from you.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Post Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:57 pm
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
But I still got doubts on option E Sad It appears to me this option stands out as the correct one because the others are wrong.
By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Thanked by: kamalj
Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
8
Post Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:41 pm
Hi Rich,
Thanks again for your clarification.

Option A - crystal clear now Smile

But I still got doubts on option E Sad It appears to me this option stands out as the correct one because the others are wrong.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Post Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:11 pm
Hi RBBmba@2014,

When it comes to CR prompts, you have to restrict your thinking to what you've been given to work with. You're NOT allowed to add in your own information (even if you know something about the subject matter).

With the given paragraph, we DON'T KNOW if irradiating food AND cooking food would compound the effect (lost nutritional value and B1 loss) because the prompt did not tell us that. Using your example, it is possible that if irradiating the food caused a 20% loss, then cooking the food would only take the loss up to 30% (and not add a 30% loss to the 20% that was already lost). The proponents of irradiation MUST assume that either you won't cook your food OR that the effects of irradiation won't get a lot worse by also cooking.

Answer E points out that misleading idea.

As far as Answer A is concerned, I think that you're confusing the idea of misleading INFO with the concept of WHO might be giving you that info. If someone gives you misleading information, then the reason WHY it's misleading is that something about the info is inaccurate. Transferring misleading information from one person to another is not a reason WHY the info is inaccurate. Answer A is just giving us a potential "WHO", but it does not properly explain WHY.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

_________________
Contact Rich at Rich.C@empowergmat.com

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 116 topics
2 LUANDATO 68 topics
3 swerve 65 topics
4 ardz24 65 topics
5 Roland2rule 64 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

Most Active Experts

1 image description Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

198 posts
2 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

181 posts
3 image description Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

168 posts
4 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

134 posts
5 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

119 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts