BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Critical Reasoning

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:29 am
Thanked: 4 times
by danjuma » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:45 am
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutrional 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 iradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since...........
A. Many proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods' having a longer life shelf
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 life shelf for perishable foods.
D.certain kinds of food, infact, 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 associted with either process individually is compounded.

Please explain your answers in detail.

Thanks a lot, Danju
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 amFollowed by: 24 members
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times

by shovan85 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:58 am
IMO E.

If the reduction of Vitamin is combined for Irradiated food and Cooking then obviously the Irradiated food proponents are misleading (by saying that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking ).
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: West Lafayette
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:700

by g000fy » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:02 am
shovan85 wrote:IMO E.

If the reduction of Vitamin is combined for Irradiated food and Cooking then obviously the Irradiated food proponents are misleading (by saying that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking ).
Totally agree
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:42 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:560

by alivapriyada » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:06 am
yes,E here also.. :)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 7 times

by ov25 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:47 am
Concl: Opponents of irradiation mislead; irradiation, which is used to extend food's shelf life, reduces food's nutritional value by reducing vitamin B1.
Premise: Opponents say cooking, which is also a means of food prep, is bad as well.

I go with C here...

here the paragraph wants the answer to explain why cooking's ill-effects are misleading or do not matter.

C does this in a nice way -- they both serve two different purposes; cooking - in prep and irradiation, extend food's shelf life.

E: compounding both effects at most ensures that each does its share but does not explain why cooking ill-effects are besides the point. Longer shelf life is important here as the passage claims that the food in question is consumed raw any way.
Last edited by ov25 on Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 amFollowed by: 24 members
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times

by shovan85 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:59 am
ov25 wrote:I go with C here...

here the paragraph wants the answer to explain why cooking's ill-effects are misleading or do not matter.

C does this in a nice way -- they both serve two different purposes; cooking - in prep and irradiation, extend food's shelf life.

E: compounding both effects at most ensures that each does its share but does not explain why cooking ill-effects are besides the point. Longer shelf life is important here as the passage claims that the food in question is consumed raw any way.
C is just a fact actually. Besides the point is meant for the reason they can be eaten raw not for cooking ill-effects. E says proponents are misleading because irradiated food if cooked then the vitamin level will get more worse.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 7 times

by ov25 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:05 pm
shovan85 wrote:
C is just a fact actually
Shovan85, I think fact may make a good premise, whose support is what is required in the question.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 amFollowed by: 24 members
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times

by shovan85 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:12 pm
ov25 wrote:shovan85 wrote:
C is just a fact actually
Shovan85, I think fact may make a good premise, whose support is what is required in the question.
I agree it can make a premise but I am still not convinced how C will make the fact "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" misleading.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: West Lafayette
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:700

by g000fy » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:33 pm
ov25 wrote:Concl: Opponents of irradiation mislead; irradiation, which is used to extend food's shelf life, reduces food's nutritional value by reducing vitamin B1.
Premise: Opponents say cooking, which is also a means of food prep, is bad as well.

I go with C here...

here the paragraph wants the answer to explain why cooking's ill-effects are misleading or do not matter.

C does this in a nice way -- they both serve two different purposes; cooking - in prep and irradiation, extend food's shelf life.

E: compounding both effects at most ensures that each does its share but does not explain why cooking ill-effects are besides the point. Longer shelf life is important here as the passage claims that the food in question is consumed raw any way.
First, proponents not opponents

Second, C fails in making a connection with Vit B1. Irradiation does differ from cooking in the sense that it is performed to increase the shelf life of perishable foods. However, it is quite possible that Vit B1 is lost during this process. C doesn't tell you that. What you see is a distinction that cooking is a final step in food preparation and irradiation is a preservation technique.

Third, proponents point out that irradiation is no worse than cooking. Visualize this - they're saying "Well, you know, irradiation destroys the same amount of Vit B1s as cooking does". How can you show that's not correct? Here comes E.

E says that, for a food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of V B1 is total reduction by cooking and irradiation. Or

Only Cooking - Loss = A
Only Irradiation - Loss = B
Cooking and Irradiation - Loss = A + B
or, irradiation destroys V B1s that are not destroyed by A. So you can't say its not worse than cooking.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 7 times

by ov25 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:52 pm
g000fy...thanks for the correction -- "Opponents to Proponents" -- but my contention remains....C imo
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pmFollowed by: 4 members
Thanked: 74 times

by uwhusky » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:26 pm
Well ov25, this is an actual OG question. So it's best to re-evaluate your reasoning, because GMAT doesn't agree with it.
Yep.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:17 am

by ricka343 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:47 pm
I am still wandering between C and E . C sounds correct under following premises

Irradiation is to increase shelf life for food . so it should not be compared with cooking as it is final step in food preparation . "shelf life compared to final step " its misleading to compare these two as purpose is different for these two .

E sounds correct as already explained by many of us .
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:41 am
Location: Washhington, DC
Thanked: 8 times

by jk2010 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:26 pm
This question irradiates my brain, yet I doubt it prolongs its shelf-life!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1