GMATPREP---Irradiation of food

[jlucero]

I think you might need to clarify your question then b/c both Ron & Tim have attempted to answer your question. Ron mentions that Irradiation & Cooking aren't simply alternatives, which is what C reinforces- that they are alternatives. E brings to the table that the statement is misleading because the alternative is that BOTH can be worse than either one by itself.

[bewith.aditya]

Experts please reply: I eliminated option C because it fails to address whether or not the nutrients/vitamins are depleted for cooked or irradiated food.

I'm I missing anything here?

[tim]

C doesn't need to address the depletion of nutrients, because the argument itself already establishes that irradiation destroys nutrients and infers that cooking does as well. there is no need for the answer choice to recapitulate what we are already told in the argument..

[bewith.aditya]

C doesn't need to address the depletion of nutrients, because the argument itself already establishes that irradiation destroys nutrients and infers that cooking does as well. there is no need for the answer choice to recapitulate what we are already told in the argument..

Thanks Tim. I misread the last portion before the blank, in the question.

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?

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

Can we generalize that a CR question that compares two or more entities assumes that they are alternatives?

[RonPurewal]

Can we generalize that a CR question that compares two or more entities assumes that they are alternatives?

well, that's usually the reason for making a comparison in the first place.

more importantly, though, this is not the kind of thing for which you should need (or want) a "rule". if a problem involves a comparison between two alternatives, that should be clear enough from context.

[reotokate]

Hi,

Since irradiation is no worse than cooking, if cooking is worse than irradiation, the proponents' argument is then misleading.

So why D is wrong?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Choice (d) directly favors the argument.

The argument is trying to establish that irradiation is "no worse than" cooking -- i.e., it's either better or the same. The point made in choice (d) goes in the same direction.

[reotokate]

OMG...You're right! Thanks much Ron!!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[melodyc660]

Can we generalize that a CR question that compares two or more entities assumes that they are alternatives?

well, that's usually the reason for making a comparison in the first place.

more importantly, though, this is not the kind of thing for which you should need (or want) a "rule". if a problem involves a comparison between two alternatives, that should be clear enough from context.

Hi Ron, sorry I couldn't seem to make the connection between 'misleading' and 'alternatives' in my head :(

for this problem, I tried to think this way:
cooking is no better than irradiated --> irradiated is fine
but irradiated food faces two options --> eaten raw/cooked
eaten raw --> beside the point
cooked --> the effect is compounded

now here, I don't know why this is 'misleading' ... there might be a language barrier somewhere, pretty sure if there's a new problem like this, I wouldn't be able to arrive at the solution.

I kind of think if something is misleading, it must have made wrong judgement on a certain type of things. like in option C, it says Cooking is this, but Irradiation is that. so if you are trying to compare apples to oranges, you are misleading. not saying I can't understand why C is wrong though as you already explained in a few posts above, my question is just how to relate 'misleading' to 'alternatives'.

(I quoted the post above because he asked essentially the same question, so I was wondering if I should just immediately think about alternatives when a question asks about what's misleading, or is there a better way to actually understand it?)

thank you!!

[HarmeetS612]

Alternative means one or two or more available possibilities, whereas Misleading means giving the wrong idea.

So here we have to justify why it is misleading -

In option C, a simple fact/additional information is provided, information that is not justifying the 'misleading' asked in the argument.

Whereas in option E, it is mentioned that effects of irradiation and cooking are not related and can be compounded to worsen the nutritional values of many foods.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

[RonPurewal]

that's the idea.

[RichaChampion]

Choice (d) directly favors the argument.

The argument is trying to establish that irradiation is "no worse than" cooking -- i.e., it's either better or the same. The point made in choice (d) goes in the same direction.

Mr. Purewal I have a real tough time understanding how is this strengthening.

There is an intermediate conclusion → Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking.
What D does →
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
This option establishes that irradiated food is not as destructive as the cooking in terms of killing the nutritional components.

By no means this seems to be a strengthener, but answers why this fact is misleading..

This fact is misleading because Irradiation kills nutritional values, but not as much as killed by cooking.

[RichaChampion]

I pondered a lot for the whole day and this is what I understand -

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

This means that Irradiation is either equal or less in terms of destroying nutritional values, but not more(worse).

Option D is a kind of reproduction of what is stated in the argument -
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is


Therefore strengthener, Right Mr. Purewal?

[RonPurewal]

the problem is that you're calling this a "strengthener" question. that's not what the words say.
remember—"classifying" questions is dangerous and unnecessary, and should only be done as a last resort when you don't really understand the question!

thinking of questions in terms of "categories" is at best just a crude approximation... and often worse. your primary plan should just be to read the words, understand them, and find what they ask for.
don't forget, CR requires NO "specialized" knowledge, and demands NOTHING that has to be "studied", "memorized", or "learned".
provided you can penetrate the annoying dense formal text and understand what the passages are actually telling you, you should be able to just do what the questions say with everyday human reasoning.

take a look at the first page of this thread. i gave a walk-through of this problem near the top of that page.