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 signifi 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.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
(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 final 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
@ Experts - I'd like to know how E is the correct answer ?
Per the Proponents of irradiation,irradiation is no worse than cooking in given context. Hence, we can say that irradiation is either as harmful as cooking in reducing V-B1 OR less harmful than cooking. Right ?
So, how it helps to establish the misleading fact ? Because in either case(irradiation is equally harmful or less harmful to cooking) the combined effect of irradiation and cooking would be more than each of these two effects(by irradiation and cooking) taken separately. How it's misleading then ? Having serious trouble in understanding the logic. Please help!
Also, for option A - if we consider the logic that Proponents of irradiation misled us to gain on their own, then how A could be wrong ?
Request verbal experts to share detail analysis and also kindly clarify why E is correct,but NOT A ?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
OG 12 Qs# 99 : The irradiation of food kills bacteria and
This topic has expert replies
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
HI RBBmba@2014,
This is an example of a fill-in-the blank Inference question. To answer it, you have to understand the logic in the prompt, then use that logic to complete the final sentence.
The Facts:
-Irradiation of food kills bacteria (and decreases spoiling of the food).
-Irradiation of food lowers the nutritional value of many foods (e.g.. irradiation destroys a significant percents of vitamin B1 in a food).
-Supporters of irradiation point out that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking (when it comes to destroying nutritional value).
-HOWEVER, this last fact is beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw OR misleading since......
Here, the word "since" tells us that we need to provide a reason why the information (about how irradiation is no worse than cooking) is misleading...
The Logic:
Irradiation clearly has some positives (kills bacteria, decreases spoilage) and some negatives (decreases nutritional value, destroys a significant percentage of vitamin B1). The Supports claim that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food, assuming that you would probably be cooking your food anyway, so the loss of nutritional value and vitamin B1 was going to happen regardless.
The last sentence points out that there are 2 problems with that line of thinking:
1) It might be beside the point - if you eat the food raw, then you were NOT going to cook it, so you COULD have gotten the full nutritional value and vitamin B1...unless someone irradiated the food first.
2) It might be misleading...
So, why might it be misleading. The brunt of the argument is that irradiation of food essentially has the same effect as cooking food, so if you plan to cook your food anyway, then irradiation should not make a difference. BUT what if it did??? Answer E gives us a reason WHY irradiating food AND cooking it would be worse than just cooking it (the reduction of vitamin B1 would be even worse).
Answer A does not actually give a reason for why the information is misleading; it just tells us about the people who would benefit (from a business standpoint) if food was irradiated.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
This is an example of a fill-in-the blank Inference question. To answer it, you have to understand the logic in the prompt, then use that logic to complete the final sentence.
The Facts:
-Irradiation of food kills bacteria (and decreases spoiling of the food).
-Irradiation of food lowers the nutritional value of many foods (e.g.. irradiation destroys a significant percents of vitamin B1 in a food).
-Supporters of irradiation point out that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking (when it comes to destroying nutritional value).
-HOWEVER, this last fact is beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw OR misleading since......
Here, the word "since" tells us that we need to provide a reason why the information (about how irradiation is no worse than cooking) is misleading...
The Logic:
Irradiation clearly has some positives (kills bacteria, decreases spoilage) and some negatives (decreases nutritional value, destroys a significant percentage of vitamin B1). The Supports claim that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food, assuming that you would probably be cooking your food anyway, so the loss of nutritional value and vitamin B1 was going to happen regardless.
The last sentence points out that there are 2 problems with that line of thinking:
1) It might be beside the point - if you eat the food raw, then you were NOT going to cook it, so you COULD have gotten the full nutritional value and vitamin B1...unless someone irradiated the food first.
2) It might be misleading...
So, why might it be misleading. The brunt of the argument is that irradiation of food essentially has the same effect as cooking food, so if you plan to cook your food anyway, then irradiation should not make a difference. BUT what if it did??? Answer E gives us a reason WHY irradiating food AND cooking it would be worse than just cooking it (the reduction of vitamin B1 would be even worse).
Answer A does not actually give a reason for why the information is misleading; it just tells us about the people who would benefit (from a business standpoint) if food was irradiated.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your detail reply.I still got some doubts!
I've couple of queries on your explanation -
1. Option E - When you say that "The Supports claim that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food", it means I think, irradiation is either as bad as or less bad than cooking in reducing VB 1. Right?
So,the combined effect of irradiation & cooking would be compounded anyway (if it's as bad as cooking or less bad than cooking).Say, irradiation accounts for 20% loss of VB 1 and cooking accounts for 30%(or same - 20%). Then undoubtedly if you cook irradiated food then the compound effect on loss of VB1 would be more than any of the effects by them (re cooking or irradiation) taken separately. Isn't it?
Then how we can say that if "The brunt of the argument is that irradiation of food essentially has the same effect as cooking food" then "if you plan to cook your food anyway, then irradiation should not make a difference" and thus how option E is supporting the misleading information - "irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking" ?
As we can see that even if irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food(i.e. either as bad as or less bad than cooking), still combined effect of irradiation & cooking would be compounded anyway,resulting in more loss of VB1 than it would have been possible by any one of 'em separately.
2. As to option A - as you say "it just tells us about the people who would benefit (from a business standpoint) if food was irradiated" , then why we can't consider this option as the reason for misleading ?
It well could be that Proponents misled us because of this very reason. Please clarify.
Look forward to hear from you.
Thanks for your detail reply.I still got some doubts!
I've couple of queries on your explanation -
1. Option E - When you say that "The Supports claim that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food", it means I think, irradiation is either as bad as or less bad than cooking in reducing VB 1. Right?
So,the combined effect of irradiation & cooking would be compounded anyway (if it's as bad as cooking or less bad than cooking).Say, irradiation accounts for 20% loss of VB 1 and cooking accounts for 30%(or same - 20%). Then undoubtedly if you cook irradiated food then the compound effect on loss of VB1 would be more than any of the effects by them (re cooking or irradiation) taken separately. Isn't it?
Then how we can say that if "The brunt of the argument is that irradiation of food essentially has the same effect as cooking food" then "if you plan to cook your food anyway, then irradiation should not make a difference" and thus how option E is supporting the misleading information - "irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking" ?
As we can see that even if irradiation is NO WORSE THAN cooking food(i.e. either as bad as or less bad than cooking), still combined effect of irradiation & cooking would be compounded anyway,resulting in more loss of VB1 than it would have been possible by any one of 'em separately.
2. As to option A - as you say "it just tells us about the people who would benefit (from a business standpoint) if food was irradiated" , then why we can't consider this option as the reason for misleading ?
It well could be that Proponents misled us because of this very reason. Please clarify.
Look forward to hear from you.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi RBBmba@2014,
When it comes to CR prompts, you have to restrict your thinking to what you've been given to work with. You're NOT allowed to add in your own information (even if you know something about the subject matter).
With the given paragraph, we DON'T KNOW if irradiating food AND cooking food would compound the effect (lost nutritional value and B1 loss) because the prompt did not tell us that. Using your example, it is possible that if irradiating the food caused a 20% loss, then cooking the food would only take the loss up to 30% (and not add a 30% loss to the 20% that was already lost). The proponents of irradiation MUST assume that either you won't cook your food OR that the effects of irradiation won't get a lot worse by also cooking.
Answer E points out that misleading idea.
As far as Answer A is concerned, I think that you're confusing the idea of misleading INFO with the concept of WHO might be giving you that info. If someone gives you misleading information, then the reason WHY it's misleading is that something about the info is inaccurate. Transferring misleading information from one person to another is not a reason WHY the info is inaccurate. Answer A is just giving us a potential "WHO", but it does not properly explain WHY.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
When it comes to CR prompts, you have to restrict your thinking to what you've been given to work with. You're NOT allowed to add in your own information (even if you know something about the subject matter).
With the given paragraph, we DON'T KNOW if irradiating food AND cooking food would compound the effect (lost nutritional value and B1 loss) because the prompt did not tell us that. Using your example, it is possible that if irradiating the food caused a 20% loss, then cooking the food would only take the loss up to 30% (and not add a 30% loss to the 20% that was already lost). The proponents of irradiation MUST assume that either you won't cook your food OR that the effects of irradiation won't get a lot worse by also cooking.
Answer E points out that misleading idea.
As far as Answer A is concerned, I think that you're confusing the idea of misleading INFO with the concept of WHO might be giving you that info. If someone gives you misleading information, then the reason WHY it's misleading is that something about the info is inaccurate. Transferring misleading information from one person to another is not a reason WHY the info is inaccurate. Answer A is just giving us a potential "WHO", but it does not properly explain WHY.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi Rich,
Thanks again for your clarification.
Option A - crystal clear now
But I still got doubts on option E
It appears to me this option stands out as the correct one because the others are wrong.
Thanks again for your clarification.
Option A - crystal clear now
But I still got doubts on option E
It appears to me this option stands out as the correct one because the others are wrong.-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.RBBmba@2014 wrote:But I still got doubts on option E
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi Mitch,GMATGuruNY wrote: By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
Thanks for your reply.
Could you please elaborate - what exactly you mean by " By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated." How do we get to know this as it's not explicitly mentioned in the argument ?
And what does exactly "no worse than" mean ? Does it not mean either as bad as or less bad than cooking ? So in other words, NOT MORE BAD than cooking. Correct me please if I'm wrong.
Now as you say " Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.", how we can be sure cooking + irradiation " DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss" ? It well could be that this loss is just aggravated (hence compounding),but not actually getting doubled by cooking + irradiation. Right ?
Look forward to hear from you.
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
A proponent is an ADVOCATE.RBBmba@2014 wrote: Could you please elaborate - what exactly you mean by " By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated." How do we get to know this as it's not explicitly mentioned in the argument?
Thus, proponents of irradiation -- by definition -- ADVOCATE the use of irradiation.
Your understanding seems to be correct.And what does exactly "no worse than" mean ? Does it not mean either as bad as or less bad than cooking ? So in other words, NOT MORE BAD than cooking. Correct me please if I'm wrong.
Irradiation is no worse than cooking implies the following:
If cooking decreases the amount of B1 by 40%, then irradiation decreases the amount of B1 by not more than 40%.
virtually implies that a statement is almost -- but not quite -- true.Now as you say " Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.", how we can be sure cooking + irradiation " DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss" ? It well could be that this loss is just aggravated (hence compounding),but not actually getting doubled by cooking + irradiation. Right ?
Look forward to hear from you.
Thus, virtually doubling implies that -- used together -- irradiation and cooking would probably not quite double the loss of B1.
But whether the loss will actually double is beside the point.
The proponents' statement is misleading for the reason offered in my post above:
Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Thanks Mitch.
Apologies for late revert. I was travelling for last couple of weeks for job purpose.
Now this makes complete sense to me - "Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.". Thank you Sir.
Apologies for late revert. I was travelling for last couple of weeks for job purpose.
Now this makes complete sense to me - "Since irradiation and cooking will most likely be used TOGETHER, it is misleading to discuss how each process ON ITS OWN decreases the amount of B1.". Thank you Sir.
-
richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
Can you help me with option D.GMATGuruNY wrote:
By definition, proponents of irradiation PROPOSE that food be irradiated.
To support this contention, they state that irradiation is no worse than cooking.
How is this statement misleading?
Because common sense tells us that most food that is irradiated is bound to be cooked as well, virtually DOUBLING the amount of B1 loss.
Thus, in stating that irradiation is NO WORSE THAN COOKING, proponents of irradiation are clearly trying to MISLEAD us about how much B1 will be lost if food is irradiated.
This is the line of reasoning suggested by the OA:
The proponents' statement is misleading since -- for food that is both irradiated and cooked -- the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
D: Certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is.richachampion wrote:
Can you help me with option D.
By stating that irradiation is less destructive than certain kinds of cooking, this option seems to strengthen the PREMISE that irradiation is no worse...than cooking.
A premise is a FACT.
It cannot be strengthened or weakened.
Eliminate any answer choice that attempts to strengthen or weaken a premise.
Eliminate D.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
