GMATPREP---Irradiation of food

[philanderer.lover]

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

Please explain the meaning of the last line in the argument and then the options.

SOURCE: GMATPREP

Regards,
Phil

[RonPurewal]

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.

[gmataspirant9]

Ron:
What is wrong with Option C here ?
I see even this option is providing the same thing which we are getting from e.

[RonPurewal]

Ron:
What is wrong with Option C here ?
I see even this option is providing the same thing which we are getting from e.

the point of option (c) is to highlight the difference in timeframes: cooking is done directly before the food is eaten, whereas irradiation is performed when the food is going to sit on the shelf for a long time (i.e., not directly before the food is eaten).
that difference may be significant in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with why the stated difference between cooking and irradiation is "misleading".

[gmatwork]

What is wrong with (a)?

[RonPurewal]

What is wrong with (a)?

the argument is restricted to the objective benefits and drawbacks of irradiation, so the fact that certain people might profit financially from irradiation doesn't matter.

if you don't understand, just make up an analogy. let's say that a friend and i are discussing whether the atkins diet actually helps people keep weight off once they've lost it. if my friend says, "but somebody's making money selling that diet!" there's pretty clearly no effect on that discussion.

[gmatwork]

thanks!

[jlucero]

Awesome!

[georgepaul0071987]

Ron:
What is wrong with Option C here ?
I see even this option is providing the same thing which we are getting from e.

the point of option (c) is to highlight the difference in timeframes: cooking is done directly before the food is eaten, whereas irradiation is performed when the food is going to sit on the shelf for a long time (i.e., not directly before the food is eaten).
that difference may be significant in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with why the stated difference between cooking and irradiation is "misleading".

I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say here .

By highlighting the difference in timeframes , aren't we showing that cooking and irradiation are in fact different steps and they are not alternatives ? So if they're not alternatives , then the comparison is misleading right ?

[tushaw]

When I first read this question, I predicted the answer to weaken the proponent claim. Here is my interpretation.

"Both the processes are the same. However, this fact is misleading".

Prediction: An answer that shows irradiation is even worse than cooking.

Ron: I do not know if this interpretation is even correct. Can you please give some feedback. If i'm even slightly on the right track then I do not understand how E weakens the argument.

[jlucero]

Ron:
What is wrong with Option C here ?
I see even this option is providing the same thing which we are getting from e.

the point of option (c) is to highlight the difference in timeframes: cooking is done directly before the food is eaten, whereas irradiation is performed when the food is going to sit on the shelf for a long time (i.e., not directly before the food is eaten).
that difference may be significant in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with why the stated difference between cooking and irradiation is "misleading".

I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say here .

By highlighting the difference in timeframes , aren't we showing that cooking and irradiation are in fact different steps and they are not alternatives ? So if they're not alternatives , then the comparison is misleading right ?

Argument: "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking."

Misleading(?): "Cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods."

As Ron said, this might be significant that these two steps are different, but there's nothing about this answer choice that would be misleading. When I read: "Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." I'm not mislead into thinking that cooking comes before/after irradiation. What I might be mislead about is that people could do both activities and further harm the nutritional value of the vegetables.

Doing cocaine is no worse than doing heroine.

Why is this misleading- I don't have to do either and (for someone who already does one) doing both might be the worst option.

[jlucero]

When I first read this question, I predicted the answer to weaken the proponent claim. Here is my interpretation.

"Both the processes are the same. However, this fact is misleading".

Prediction: An answer that shows irradiation is even worse than cooking.

Ron: I do not know if this interpretation is even correct. Can you please give some feedback. If i'm even slightly on the right track then I do not understand how E weakens the argument.

This would be less misleading and more flat-out wrong. We want to find an answer choice that allows the facts to stand true, but still gives a reason against irradiating food. (E) does this because it gives us a reason why, even though irradiation might not be worse than cooking, it still misleads- many people will already cook vegetables, so why further harm the nutritional value? See above for another analogy.

[divineacclivity]

Ron:
What is wrong with Option C here ?
I see even this option is providing the same thing which we are getting from e.

the point of option (c) is to highlight the difference in timeframes: cooking is done directly before the food is eaten, whereas irradiation is performed when the food is going to sit on the shelf for a long time (i.e., not directly before the food is eaten).
that difference may be significant in some contexts, but it has nothing to do with why the stated difference between cooking and irradiation is "misleading".

Ron,

The reason you chose E for seems to be better described in option C.
You explained that the correct option should tell that cooking and irradiation are NOT alternatives. Option C clearly states that Cooking is the final step whereas irradiation only ensures longer shelf life (i.e. before or after cooking but since cooking is the FINAL step then this must be done before cooking; the contrast is evident with the use of "whereas")
"whereas" yells that cooking is the final step WHEREAS <irradiation is an intermediate one>
Infact option E in itself doesn't say cooking and irradiation are not alternatives. It just says "For the food that are both cooked and irradiated - doesn't convey that there could exist some food which could just be irradiated and not cooked or the other way round"
Please help me understand the right logic so that I can come a step closer to hitting correct answers as you do :)

Editing to add another example where cooking & irradiation could kind of be alternatives to each other,
E.g. leafy vegetables could be eaten raw in salad (after irradiation) or would need to be cooked to get rid of the harmful bacteria they could be carrying

Trust me I dont mean to be picky atall here but this is exactly what my thought process was when I picked the wrong answer to this question & I really want to develop that perspective aligned rightly with the gmat techniques so that I can pick the right answers myself.
I am really thankful to you for all the help you've provided for free for the preparation

thank you!

[tim]

once again, as Ron said, the time frame has NOTHING to do with which option is better or worse, so C is out. if you want to emulate Ron's thought processes, you're going to have to start by accepting his thought processes as valid! E definitely suggests that cooking and irradiation are not alternatives. "alternatives" as Ron used the word means it's one or the other, and E makes it clear that it is possible to do both..

[divineacclivity]

I still did not get my answer :(