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
OAE
How is E the correct answer ? I thought it should have been D ..
Irradiation of food - complete the argument
This topic has expert replies
- ritika_bsg
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:44 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
The question has started by hinting at the pros as well as the cons of irradiation.With regard to the cons of irradiation he has demonstrated the same with an example with the B1 vitamin.Due to which we can reach a logical conclusion that option B could be the answer which eventually points out that the use of irradiation needs to be regulated since it has it's merits and demerits i.e. it kills the bacteria and prevents the food from getting spoiled but on the contrary it also reduces the nutritional value.
I would pick option B
B)it is clear that killing bacteria that may be
present on food is not the only effect that
irradiation has
I would pick option B
B)it is clear that killing bacteria that may be
present on food is not the only effect that
irradiation has
- ritika_bsg
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:44 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
Oh then I guess I was wrong at interpreting it.I think we have to just give a logical sequence to the example rather than the entire argument as a whole.ritika_bsg wrote:But the answer is E here ..
Going by that the answer is E.
- David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
This is an LSAT question that I have taught many, many times. Despite being an LSAT question this is very useful for the GMAT given that the "best completes the passage" is a very common type of question on the GMAT going forward. I have written an article about the changes in OG13 and the fact that best completes the passage made up 1/3 of all the new questions added to the Official Guide 13th edtion. The link is here https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2012/03/ ... -reasoning
So this is a Best completes the passage question and that means that it is most likely either a strengthen or an inference (although other types are possible). In this case it is a strengthen question as we can see by the lead-in word "since" this is a premise word and it indicates that we should strengthen the conclusion just given.
to quote:
"However, this fact is either beside the point, since
much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading,
since______"
The conclusion challenges "this fact" (that irradiation is no worse in terms of destroying vitamin B1 than is cooking) for two reasons. The first reason is already given, "most irradiated food is eaten raw" that is why they comparison to cooking is "beside the point" if food is eaten raw it would not be cooked and would not lose an B1.
The second reason has to be something that makes the "fact that irradiation is no worse than cooking" actually misleading. What would do that? Well what if the irradiated food is cooked? The impression given is that you are no worse off since irradiation is "no worse than cooking." But what if these two things EACH took away that amount of vitamin? Then it would be misleading since irradiation AND cooking would each reduce the vitamins.
That is what choice E is saying, for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded". It is saying that if you cook irradiated food then you lose the vitamin twice - some when irradiated and then again when cooked.
So that would prove that it is misleading to say that irradiation only reduces the vitamin as much as cooking.
Does that help? Are there any of the answer choices that I can explain for you?
So this is a Best completes the passage question and that means that it is most likely either a strengthen or an inference (although other types are possible). In this case it is a strengthen question as we can see by the lead-in word "since" this is a premise word and it indicates that we should strengthen the conclusion just given.
to quote:
"However, this fact is either beside the point, since
much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading,
since______"
The conclusion challenges "this fact" (that irradiation is no worse in terms of destroying vitamin B1 than is cooking) for two reasons. The first reason is already given, "most irradiated food is eaten raw" that is why they comparison to cooking is "beside the point" if food is eaten raw it would not be cooked and would not lose an B1.
The second reason has to be something that makes the "fact that irradiation is no worse than cooking" actually misleading. What would do that? Well what if the irradiated food is cooked? The impression given is that you are no worse off since irradiation is "no worse than cooking." But what if these two things EACH took away that amount of vitamin? Then it would be misleading since irradiation AND cooking would each reduce the vitamins.
That is what choice E is saying, for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded". It is saying that if you cook irradiated food then you lose the vitamin twice - some when irradiated and then again when cooked.
So that would prove that it is misleading to say that irradiation only reduces the vitamin as much as cooking.
Does that help? Are there any of the answer choices that I can explain for you?
Last edited by David@VeritasPrep on Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
Hi David,
I am confused with this part
I am confused with this part
Could you please elaborate?Well what is the irradiated food is the cooked? The impression given is that you are no worse off since irradiation is "no worse than cooking." But what if these two things EACH took away that amount of vitamin? Then it would be misleading since irradiation AND cooking would each reduce the vitamins.
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay
- David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
Bubliiii -
My sentence is atrocious there. I have edited that first sentence you quote and here is the full part that you quote:
"Well what if the irradiated food is cooked? The impression given is that you are no worse off since irradiation is "no worse than cooking." But what if these two things EACH took away that amount of vitamin? Then it would be misleading since irradiation AND cooking would each reduce the vitamins."
What I mean is that the argument makes a person think that if they do plan on cooking their food, that it does not matter if it has been irradiated since the vitamins lost through irradiation would have been lost through cooking anyway. For example, if 1/3 of the vitamin is lost through cooking and a similar amount through irradiation then it would not seem to matter if you start with irradiated food or not since 1/3 will be lost too cooking in any case.
The argument wants you to make this statement misleading. That is what you are filling in the blank with, something that would make this idea that it does not matter if you start with irradiated food since the result of cooking will be the same anyway. The answer is E. If the reduction in vitamin b1 is compounded when irradiated food is cooked then instead of losing say 1/3 of vitamin to cooking or a similar amount to eating irradiated food raw, you would lose 2/3 of the vitamin when you cook the irradiated food and the amount of vitamin lost is compounded.
Does that make more sense?
My sentence is atrocious there. I have edited that first sentence you quote and here is the full part that you quote:
"Well what if the irradiated food is cooked? The impression given is that you are no worse off since irradiation is "no worse than cooking." But what if these two things EACH took away that amount of vitamin? Then it would be misleading since irradiation AND cooking would each reduce the vitamins."
What I mean is that the argument makes a person think that if they do plan on cooking their food, that it does not matter if it has been irradiated since the vitamins lost through irradiation would have been lost through cooking anyway. For example, if 1/3 of the vitamin is lost through cooking and a similar amount through irradiation then it would not seem to matter if you start with irradiated food or not since 1/3 will be lost too cooking in any case.
The argument wants you to make this statement misleading. That is what you are filling in the blank with, something that would make this idea that it does not matter if you start with irradiated food since the result of cooking will be the same anyway. The answer is E. If the reduction in vitamin b1 is compounded when irradiated food is cooked then instead of losing say 1/3 of vitamin to cooking or a similar amount to eating irradiated food raw, you would lose 2/3 of the vitamin when you cook the irradiated food and the amount of vitamin lost is compounded.
Does that make more sense?
- bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
Thank you sir.
It certainly does.
I think in answering this question phrase "no worse than cooking." is key point. E proves that irradiation is actually much worse than cooking (if irradiated food is cooked). What I was looking in an option was when both are done together irradiation food is better than cooking (opposite to what E states).
It certainly does.
I think in answering this question phrase "no worse than cooking." is key point. E proves that irradiation is actually much worse than cooking (if irradiated food is cooked). What I was looking in an option was when both are done together irradiation food is better than cooking (opposite to what E states).
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay