-
metallicafan
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
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 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
By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.
Please, your help.
OA is E.
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 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
By POE, I agree with the OA. However, I have this doubt:
Although it seems a strengthen question, this is a weaken question because we have to show that the point of the proponents of irradiation is wrong.
In this sense, we have to weaken the conclusion: "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". In other words, we have to show that irradiation destroys a higher percentage of vitamin B1.
Choice E indicates that irradiating and cooking the food destroys more vitamin B1 than either of those processes alone. However, this choice just shows that the compound effect is bigger or higher, it doesn't show that irradiating is worse than cooking if we comparing them individually.
Please, your help.
OA is E.
