• 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 FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM 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
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......

Legendary Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:15 members

by AIM GMAT » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:29 am
You are right , tough call between C and E . IMO E

I feel E is more connected with the sentence , C doesnt says anything about the "misleading".
Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:34 am
IMO C

This I have infered based on last line
since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since (please weaken the previous one)

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:53 am
OA is E but AIMGMAT can you explain in more detail the whole question, i went through OG explanation but couldnt understand the explanation :-(

Legendary Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:15 members

by AIM GMAT » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:43 am
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 :-(
The question asks us to complete the sentence , so lets evaluate on what basis we should move ahead .

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,
AIM GMAT