Critical Reasoning

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 _______.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

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
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

OA: E

Some Great Author has given this explanation.

I am not whole heartedly convinced by the explanation given by Ron her -

Choice (d) directly favors the argument.

The argument is trying to establish that irradiation is "no worse than" cooking -- i.e., it's either better or the same. The point made in choice (d) goes in the same direction.

I do not find this favoring.

There is an intermediate conclusion → Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
What D does →
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
This option establishes that irradiated food is not as destructive as the cooking in terms of killing the nutritional components.
By no means this seems to be a strengthener, but answers why this fact is misleading..

This fact is misleading because Irradiation kills nutritional values, but not as much as killed by cooking.

richachampion wrote:There is an intermediate conclusion → Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
What D does →
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
This option establishes that irradiated food is not as destructive as the cooking in terms of killing the nutritional components.
By no means this seems to be a strengthener, but answers why this fact is misleading..

This fact is misleading because Irradiation kills nutritional values, but not as much as killed by cooking.

The Fact Being Discussed: Irradiation is NO WORSE in this respect, the destruction of B1, than cooking.

Answer Choice D: certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than ... irradiation is.

In other words, certain kinds of cooking are WORSE than irradiation.

While the two statements do not say exactly the same thing, the two statements are not in disagreement. Here they are summarized.

Irradiation is not worse.

Some forms of cooking are worse.

The second statement does not indicate that the first is misleading. Rather the second statement fits the scenario described by the first statement and builds on what the first statement says.

Marty Murray wrote:
The Fact Being Discussed: Irradiation is NO WORSE in this respect, the destruction of B1, than cooking.

Answer Choice D: certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than ... irradiation is.

In other words, certain kinds of cooking are WORSE than irradiation.

While the two statements do not say exactly the same thing, the two statements are not in disagreement. Here they are summarized.

Irradiation is not worse.

Some forms of cooking are worse.

The second statement does not indicate that the first is misleading. Rather the second statement fits the scenario described by the first statement and builds on what the first statement says.

This means that Irradiation is either equal or less in terms of destroying nutritional values, but not more(worse).

Option D is a kind of reproduction of the portion of the argument-
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is


Therefore strengthener, Right Mr. Murray?

richachampion wrote:Option D is a kind of reproduction of the portion of the argument-

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is


Therefore strengthener, Right Mr. Murray?

That is basically right, except in that I am reluctant to call D a strengthener in that it does not really add new information that somehow strengthens the argument. D, for the most part, says what has already been said, and you can't strengthen an argument without adding something new.

Marty Murray wrote:

richachampion wrote:Option D is a kind of reproduction of the portion of the argument-

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is


Therefore strengthener, Right Mr. Murray?

That is basically right, except in that I am reluctant to call D a strengthener in that it does not really add new information that somehow strengthens the argument. D, for the most part, says what has already been said, and you can't strengthen an argument without adding something new.

Correct Sir, I agree with you. Thanks!