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 signi� cant 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 � 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
My understanding from the Question is :
Irradiation of food kills bacteria,however,it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods (this means it decreases the % of B1 vitamin in the food ).
Now this is no worse than cooking --> cooking also decreases the B1 vitamin content in the food.
However, thisfact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?
Open to discussion
Many thanks
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 signi� cant 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 � 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
My understanding from the Question is :
Irradiation of food kills bacteria,however,it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods (this means it decreases the % of B1 vitamin in the food ).
Now this is no worse than cooking --> cooking also decreases the B1 vitamin content in the food.
However, thisfact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?
Open to discussion
Many thanks
