OG-12 CR Q-99 irradiation of food

[ankit0411]

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 signi� 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 � 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

My understanding from the Question is :
Irradiation of food kills bacteria,however,it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods (this means it decreases the % of B1 vitamin in the food ).
Now this is no worse than cooking --> cooking also decreases the B1 vitamin content in the food.


However, thisfact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?

Open to discussion

Many thanks

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

We're looking for a reason the statement that "irradiation is no worse in this respect (destroying B1) than cooking" may not be telling the full story.

A--Irrelevant to the effects of irradiation as compared to cooking

B--Irrelevant to the effects of irradiation on B1

C--Irrelevant to the effects of irradiation on B1

D--Fits with the statement that irradiation is "no worse" than cooking; irradiation could well be better

E--Irradiation makes the effects of cooking on B1 worse, so the statement that irradiation is "no worse" is only true if you ignore the possibility that irradiated food may be cooked.

[chandan.mnnit]

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 signi� 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....................

However, thisfact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?

Open to discussion

Many thanks

The Statement asks us to give a reasoning to make the proponents of the irradiation logic misleading.
The proponents of irradiation says that the irradiation is no worse than cooking as in cooking also some % of the nutritional value is lost. But he fails to consider the question that what if the food that has been initially irradiated is cooked. Does the % of the nutrients lost is same after both the process, of is the % of nutritional loss more. Hence misleading..!!

Hope was able to clear off some confusion

[agarwalmanoj2000]

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?

The bold statement means that the statement "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is either either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading. We have to find an option that explains why the statement "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking" is either beside the point, or else misleading or why irradiation is worse?


(A) many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from foods’ having a longer shelf life
=> This does tell us why irradiation is worse, so cross out.

(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
=> Irradication may have other effects but they may be good or bad. This does tell us why irradiation is worse, so cross out.

(C) cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
=> This does tell us why irradiation is worse, so cross out.

(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
=> This does tell us why irradiation is worse, so cross out.

(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
=> This does tell us why irradiation is worse because it reduces the vitamins by more, so this is the answer.

HTH

[bubbliiiiiiii]

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 signi� 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 - distributors gain is out of scope of argument.
(B) it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has - we are concerned about other effects and how those effects are better/worse than cooking. This option does not convey the required information.
(C) cooking is usually the �nal step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods - tries to justify irradiation. Thus, incorrect.
(D) certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is. Conveys that irradiation, in some aspect, is better than cooking.
(E) for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded. - This option conveys that if the food is both cooked and irradiated, in either order, B1 is lost in huge amounts (compounded). Thus, irradiation ultimately leads to loss of B1.

However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading I fail to understand this bold statement and how this derives us to OA E ?
How can E make the statement misleading ?

this fact refers to " irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking".

By stating this, the proponents wants to claim that irradiation over cooking has less or the same impact. We have to weaken this by attacking that irradiation causes much more harm than cooking, atleast in certain cases. Thus, we have to search for options which focusses on highlighting the negative impact of irradiation.

Hope this helps.