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

Redeem

irradiation

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
Thanked: 21 times

irradiation

by reachac » Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:17 pm
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 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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:51 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Re : irradiation

by sumant1808 » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:02 am
IMO A

Proponents of irradiation say that negative effect of irradiation is same as that of cooking, Author says that it is misleading because.....

Answer must support cooking and illustrate negative impact of irradiation.

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food’s having a longer shelf life
Illustrates the reason why proponents are misleading...

B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
Not of use to the point in consideration.

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 point does not focus on negative aspect of irradiation


D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
Opposite


E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
Doesn't serve any purpose.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:05 am
It has to be A or C

I will go with A because there has to be something related to Proponents in the conclusion.

C can be the answer because of the word " misleading"...We dont have to find anything that "negates the effect" of irradiation but provide a reason that cooking and irradiation are two different aspects..

Just my view..

Neways, IMO:A
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:23 am
Thanked: 1 times

by bigfernhead » Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:38 pm
IMO C.

What's the OA?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

by kiranlegend » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:26 pm
IMO A.

mate, OA pls?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:06 pm
i narrowed it down to A or C.
IMO C
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
Thanked: 21 times

by reachac » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:33 pm
OA E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:29 am
some one can explain this?
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:00 pm
Thanked: 4 times

Re: irradiation

by nitin86 » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:47 am
reachac wrote: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 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
IMO E

Consclusion states that the fact (cooking also causes loss of nutrients...) is beside the point because either the irradiated food is eaten raw (and in this case it is causing loss of nutrients) or if it's not eatern raw (this means it is also cooked..) then there is compounded loss of nutrients
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:00 pm
reachac wrote: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 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
Can someone explain why D is not the right answer ?
We are arguing against irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking concept. One point being, much irradiated food is eaten raw. The other point, I thought D, is giving a proper argument of why irradiation is better than cooking. Option E says that the effect is compounded but does not defend the argument that irradiation is better than cooking. Is this what "misleading" is all about ?? What the heck is cooking here :roll:
I am on a break !!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:20 am
sumanr84 wrote: Can someone explain why D is not the right answer ?
We are arguing against irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking concept. One point being, much irradiated food is eaten raw. The other point, I thought D, is giving a proper argument of why irradiation is better than cooking. Option E says that the effect is compounded but does not defend the argument that irradiation is better than cooking. Is this what "misleading" is all about ?? What the heck is cooking here :roll:
Hi Suman,

Let me explain this for you.

Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is better than cooking. the word "However" is introducing contrast. So we are trying to find a statement that proves the opposite. (cooking is better than irradiation or irradiation is more destructive than cooking)

D says:
certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

Observe the word "Certain kinds of cooking".. It doesnt mention that all kinds of cooking are destructive. But we need a strong point to fill the blank in the passage.
Moreover, it introduces a new term called "carefully controlled irradiation " which is not discussed in the passage. We are trying to compare only "certain kinds" of cooking against "carefully controlled" irradiation. which is a very weak comparison.

Hence D doesnt say that cooking is destructive than irradiation. It says "certian kinds of cooking" is destructive than"carefully controlled irradiation".

Even if it says cooking is destructive than irradiation., This is not what we want. We want the opposite of it.

On the other hand, E says
for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
Suppose irradiation reduces B1 by 10%.
Cooking reduces B1 by 10%.
If the irradiated food is cooked, then
B1 is reduced on the whole by 19%.

If irradiated food is also cooked again, then there is loss of Higher percentage of Vitamin B.
This means to say that irradiation is more destructive than cooking.
Though irradiation and cooking are interlinked, proponents are trying to mislead by showing them independently.

Hope this helps!!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:28 am
I got your point..well explained..thanks for putting your time in explaining..
I am on a break !!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1