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 clera 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.
I could reject A and B choices but really confused between C and E option.............. Can Anyone please explain in detail......
7 CATs FREE!If you earn 100 Forum Points
Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREEVERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMSEarn 10 Points Per Post Earn 10 Points Per Thanks Earn 10 Points Per UpvoteREDEEM NOW
Which of the following most logically completes the argument
This topic has expert replies
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: 28 Jan 2011
- Thanked: 88 times
- Followed by:13 members
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 857
- Joined: 25 Aug 2010
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:15 members
The question asks us to complete the sentence , so lets evaluate on what basis we should move ahead .aspirant2011 wrote:OA is E but AIMGMAT can you explain in more detail the whole question, i went through OG explanation but couldnt understand the explanation
However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since
So we need to show contrast to what is said in the previous statement i.e. we need to prove that irradiation is worse than cooking .
Now why E Option E explains that if food is irradiated and cooked both then the reduction in vitamin b12 is compunded .
For ex- Irradiation = 10% vitamin B1 loss
Cooking = 10 % vitamin b1 loss
irradiation + cooking = 20 % vitamin b1 loss = compounded effect .
If irradiated food eaten raw = cooked food , but if irradiated food need to be cooked the loss is in multiples , that means irradiation is worse than cooking .
Hope that helps . Let me know if u are not clear with the explanation . I will try to elaborate more .
Thanks & Regards,