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

Redeem

food irradication

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:43 pm
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 1 times

food irradication

by sogmat » Sun May 03, 2009 10:20 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- please explain reasons for your choice
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Sun May 03, 2009 6:17 pm
IMO - E through process of negation and link between irradiation and cooking that reduces foods nutritional value.

Can you please confirm if option E has been properly noted down by you (as in you haven't missed out anything)?
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:50 am
Thanked: 1 times

by yashanth.ponnanna » Sun May 03, 2009 9:31 pm
We have to choose the most suitable option for the reasoning that "the fact that irradiation is no worse than cooking is misleading" since...

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

This is out of scope..


B. it is clear that k!II!ng bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

We are discussing about irradiation on nutrition.. not about bacteria... hence refute this

C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

We do not have to talk bot perishable food.. Invalid..

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

This weakens the statement. We have to show that irradiation is worse than cooking.

E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.

This says that with either cooking or irradiation, reduction of vitamin B1 occurs on both. This shows that reduction of B1 occurs in both the cases. This fact is in contrast to the fact that irradiation cannot be worse than cooking.. Hence "E"
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:07 am
Thanked: 7 times

by ket » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:31 am
I have been contemplating on this argument now (I myself did not solve it correctly) and thought I would share my explanations (because none of the explanations on the forum seemed to me sufficient).

1. IN essence the argument is about whether the irradiation should be
allowed.

2. The proponents of irradiation state that even if the irradiation is removed the same result will follow for consumers because the cooking of the food reduces the B1 vitamin in same amount as irradiation

Just think for a moment that we agree with opponents that the cooking causes the reduction in the same amount as irradiation. then it logically follows that still no irradiation is better because we are facing actually two alternatives a) irradiation + cooking b) no irradiation + cooking it is obvious then that in alternative a) the amount of B1 reduced will be twice as much as in alternative b (both irradiation and cooking will reduce vitamin, while in b. only cooking will reduce it), therefore alternative b)- no irradiation is better.

This why the statement is misleading - i.e. in actuality it is against irradiation rather than for it. - hence ans E.

I don't know it this explanation is correct, this is only my view:) It would be great if other explanations would be offered too.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: food irradication

by vinaynp » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:40 pm
E) by POE.

A) OOS on account of food distributors.
B) We cannot say this.
C) Additional Information.
D) We cannot say this.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Thnks

by turbo jet » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:39 am
Well this is a tough one to crack!!!

I chose B which is wrong. E didnt even strike me.

Excellent explanation for not choosing B given by yashnath. Thx a ton!!

And a super fabulous explanation for Why E is the correct answer given by Ket. Thnks a ton Ket!!!! Superb explanation. Hope to see much more great stuff from you!!!!!

Thnks sogmat for the great question.

:D

Cheers!!!
Turbo Jet


:) :)
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:14 am

by Brad.C » Sun May 15, 2016 1:59 pm
I believe the answer should be B
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1