99, og 12

[nafiul9090]

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
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 .
(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


can anyone explain this???

[finance]

Is it C?

[mundasingh123]

I can help you understand the OA . Though i did get it wrong when i solved the CR a long time back.
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 .
-------------------------------------------------
This is what we have to Explain here

Proponents of irradiation point out that
irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
However, this fact is either beside the point,

We have to find a choice that proves the point that irradiation is worse than cooking .
Irradiated food cant be as bad as cooking because irradiated food is eaten raw,if we dont want to eat it cooked whereas cooked food is eaten cooked (couldnt find a better word )
But generally people cook their food before eating it . So If we cook the irradiated food the nutritional value gets decreased further because of Cooking .
So Nutritional value gets decreased because of irradiation + Nutritional value gets decreased because of cooking

[ranjeet75]

Though I selected D at first but after reading the explanation C looks good because we have to prove that cooking is better than irradiation.

Am I right?

[LIL]

let's break it down, yo.

here's the basic gist of the problem:

irradiating food makes it last longer. unfortunately, it also makes the food less nutritious. people who think irradiation is awesome point out that, while irradiation makes food less nutritious, so does cooking. but this is a bad argument, because most people eat irradiated food raw or because ___________.

so, here's the argument that we're trying to weaken (we know we're trying to weaken it because of "this fact is beside the point":

"irradiation might be bad, but it's just as bad as cooking"

they already give us one weakening statement:

much irradiated food is eaten raw

in other words, saying "irradiation is just as bad as cooking" is a lie if the food is eaten raw. after all, if you don't cook the food ("eat it raw") then the damage that cooking does to food does not happen.

so now we know we don't only want to weaken the argument, we know exactly what we want to say:

that irradiation is BAD, yo

i don't know what the OA is, but (e) looks like the best answer.

(e) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

in other words, if you cook irradiated food, you damage the food twice -- once when you irradiate it, and then even more ("compounded") when you cook it. so irradiation is not "just as bad as cooking," it's worse. the proponents of irradiation are all like, "dude, don't worry, if we irradiate your food it's the same as you cooking it." but it's not, because they damage it and then you damage it more (by cooking it). if they didn't damage it first, you would still damage it (by cooking it), but it wouldn't be as damaged.

[LIL]

Though I selected D at first but after reading the explanation C looks good because we have to prove that cooking is better than irradiation.

Am I right?

(c) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

imo, (c) doesn't seem to be saying anything...at all. it says two things:

1) cooking is the last step before you eat
2) irradiation makes things last longer

this doesn't say that cooking is better than irradiation...it just says cooking is later than irradiation.

[ranjeet75]

Thanks Lil for clarification.

[finance]

OA pls?

[mundasingh123]

OA pls?

C

[cyrwr1]

I think E is the answer.

Irradiation or cooking both ---> less vitamins

we need to find another part of the sentence that does NOT take about raw.

Either raw or X

so X must have a "cooked/prepared" in it.

If the food does both, the reduction of vitamins compounding is logical