Q from OG 12th edition

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:26 pm

Q from OG 12th edition

by mkhanna » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:37 am
Q99) 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 if 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 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 radiation 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

Source: OG 12th edition
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:46 am

by MaxPower » Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:28 am
The question is asking for a reason (since ______) why the the claim made by those supporting irradiation is beside the point.

E provides a good answer - just because food loses B1 for cooking doesn't mean it won't lose MORE B1 for irradiation.