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 Bl 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 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 Bl than carefully controlled irradiation is
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process individually is compounded
OA : E
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
CR : irradiation
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Given: Irradiation lowers the nutritional value of many foods
Proponents argue: no worse in this respect than cooking.
Our goal: What would make this argument misleading? Essentially, proponents imply that irradiation is ok because, although it lowers nutrients, so does cooking, so doing both won't be more harmful. Is that necessarily true? It's sort of like saying "getting hit in the head with a baseball bat is no worse than getting hit with a frying pan, so it doesn't matter if you do both." But isn't it possible that it will DOUBLE the negative impact?
(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods' having a longer shelf life
Who they are or what their motivations are - these things are irrelevant to whether the argument is misleading.
(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
This can be inferred from the statements. It does not make the connection to cooking 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
The chronology of when these things happen is irrelevant.
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin Bl than carefully controlled irradiation is
This would heighten the proponents' argument, not make it misleading.
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process individually is compounded
Here, we're told that doing both will cause greater nutrient loss, not just the same nutrient loss. Correct.
Proponents argue: no worse in this respect than cooking.
Our goal: What would make this argument misleading? Essentially, proponents imply that irradiation is ok because, although it lowers nutrients, so does cooking, so doing both won't be more harmful. Is that necessarily true? It's sort of like saying "getting hit in the head with a baseball bat is no worse than getting hit with a frying pan, so it doesn't matter if you do both." But isn't it possible that it will DOUBLE the negative impact?
(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods' having a longer shelf life
Who they are or what their motivations are - these things are irrelevant to whether the argument is misleading.
(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
This can be inferred from the statements. It does not make the connection to cooking 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
The chronology of when these things happen is irrelevant.
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin Bl than carefully controlled irradiation is
This would heighten the proponents' argument, not make it misleading.
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin Bl associated with either process individually is compounded
Here, we're told that doing both will cause greater nutrient loss, not just the same nutrient loss. Correct.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
