Critical Reasoning

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

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 ).

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

yes,E here also..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

g000fy...thanks for the correction -- "Opponents to Proponents" -- but my contention remains....C imo

Well ov25, this is an actual OG question. So it's best to re-evaluate your reasoning, because GMAT doesn't agree with it.

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 .

This question irradiates my brain, yet I doubt it prolongs its shelf-life!