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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Confusing

Expert replies
by gmatjeet » Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:26 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 nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin Bl a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation are 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
U. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin Bi 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA : E

I am totally clueless about this question. Tried understanding the same from OG's explanation but its not clear. Can someone please help.

If the aim is to try to prove that the proponents are telling wrong then should't we prove that either irradiation is really bad or cooking is not bad.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:38 am
I initially chose C.

Can you post OE please?
Regards,

Pranay
Join the discussion

by kevincanspain » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:28 am
Proponents of irradiation try to defend it by saying that cooking destroys just as many nutrients as irradiation: in other words, what difference does it make that irradiation destroys nutrients when cooking is at least as bad in this respect? E points out that the effects are cumulative, meaning that irradiation and cooking is worse than cooking alone.

Here's an analogy: there's no point in taking your Mastercard on your holiday to Greece: after all, you also have a Visa, which is accepted in 3 times as many restaurants and shops as is Mastercard.
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Join the discussion

by amit2k9 » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:43 am
Well !! you should catch the statement that irradiated foods are eaten raw.This gives a hint rightly justified by the statement E.

E states that the cumulative effect of cooking and irradiating is much worse.
Hence the OA.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
Join the discussion