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

Redeem

OG12 CR on Irradiation

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:19 am
Thanked: 1 times

OG12 CR on Irradiation

by getso » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:55 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 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
irradiation has
(C) cooking is usually the fi nal 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..

I thought D is the correct answer. Can anybody explain why E is correct but why not D.

Thanks
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

Re: OG12 CR on Irradiation

by Testluv » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:27 am
getso wrote: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 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
irradiation has
(C) cooking is usually the fi nal 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..

I thought D is the correct answer. Can anybody explain why E is correct but why not D.

Thanks
Hi getso,

Listen for the author's tone, and use keywords. The second sentence starts with a contrast keyword "however". Contrast words have a way of ushering in the author's perspective (blah blah blah BUT here's what I think). So the second sentence tells us that he is NOT a fan of irradiating food.

He then brings up the proponents of irradiation in the next sentence (the people who want to irradiate the food). They argue that cooking removes as many nutrients as irradiating (so irradiation isn't so bad is what they are arguing).

But the final sentence is the author's argument against the proponents of irradiation (we can tell, again, because of "however"). He is pointing out that the proponents' argument is unconvincing because either the food being irradiated isn't going to get cooked OR _____.

We have to select a choice that will complete the author's point of view logically--here that means another reason why irradiation is bad. Choice E does that because if the irradiated food is going to get cooked, there is a double loss of nutrients. So, the proponents' argument--that because cooking also depletes nutrients, irradiation isn't so bad--then becomes unconvincing. Either the irradiated food isn't going to get cooked anyways or, if it does get cooked, there is a double loss of nutrients.

Choice D, rather than providing another reason why irradiating food is bad, talks about how cooking is bad. This will fail to affect the irradiation-proponents' argument, and so would not be a logical completion of the author's argument.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:19 am
Thanked: 1 times

by getso » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:17 am
Hi Testluv,

Thanks for the great explaination.

I always get struck between two answers. The one I would have chosen will always turn out wrong :(

Could you please provide me tips on how do I tackle this...especially verbal.

Thanks
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:05 pm
I believe the correct answer should be A.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:06 pm
I still feel A should be the answer.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1