irradiation of food

[ranell]

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

[ronaldo780]

I think it's E, but it's more like something I remember rather than fully understand. The comparison between irradiating food and cooking it is misleading because some foods get both and suffer a double effect, so the similarities do no justify irradiation.

[gmatmachoman]

IMO C

[tanviet]

there are two opposite view.

we need to supply evidence for a view. D is correc

C is not correct because food can be both radiated and cooked. C is irrelevant.

[mehravikas]

This is an OG 12 question and the OA is E...

Not able to understand why the answer is 'E'....

[lunarpower]

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:

People have compared irradiation to cooking and found that they're about the same (in terms of leaching nutrients). Why is this comparison misleading?

(note that you're ONLY concerned with the "misleading" part, since that's where the blank is. the "beside the point" part DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.)

--

so, you're looking for a reason why it's MISLEADING to COMPARE IRRADIATION TO COOKING.

when you COMPARE two things, the assumption is that they are ALTERNATIVES.

therefore, if a comparison is "misleading", we need a choice that shows that they aren't simply alternatives.

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

--

analogy:
let's say that dieting burns MORE body fat than does exercise, all other things equal.

if i say "you should just diet, since exercise is no better than dieting", then that's MISLEADING.

why is it misleading?
because ... you can do both, compounding the effects.

same deal here.

[mehravikas]

Thanks Ron.

Can you elaborate what makes C wrong? Is it because it talks about only perishable foods?

when you get one of these questions, you should try to simplify the argument as much as you can. once you do that - get rid of as much "noise" and verbiage as possible - you should be able to answer the questions more readily.

in this case, here's a more "noise-free" version of the argument:
--

this is what choice (e) does: it shows that some food is irradiated AND cooked. they're not alternatives, so you can't settle the issue with a comparison.

[lunarpower]

Thanks Ron.

Can you elaborate what makes C wrong? Is it because it talks about only perishable foods?

limiting the statement to perishable foods is another weakness, yes. but, principally, this statement does not DIRECTLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A COMPARISON between irradiation and cooking (as does the correct answer).

you could make a case that it contains somewhat of a reason to question the comparison, since the differing roles described in (c) make it possible that the two processes could be compounded.
however, that objection is nowhere as direct as the objection offered by the correct answer.

[kris77]

Guys can anyone give a decent reason why E is not right.