Problema GMAT Verbal 08/05/14 (CR) (>700)

[Recobita]

Verbal (CR) (>700)

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

[wisehacks]

Gracias por la pregunta, Recobita.

respuesta: show

Si hubiera un "ninguna de las anteriores", me quedaba con esa respuesta, pero como no la hay, toca elegir la menos mala.

(A) Que se beneficien de ello no implica necesariamente que sus argumentos sean engañosos.
(B) Aunque tenga otros efectos, no nos dicen si son negativos, o no.
(C) Indica que puesto que los alimenos hay que cocinarlos para comérselos, no hay forma de prevenir esa pérdida de vitamina B1, mientras que irradiarlos sólo produce beneficio a loso vendedores de los productos y es innecesario. Es la menos mala, me la quedo.
(D) Esta opción refuerza el punto de vista de los defensores de irradiar la comida, que es lo contrario de lo que buscamos.
(E) El hecho de que irradiar+cocinar reduzca la vitamina B1 más que sólo irradiar (o sólo cocinar), no hace que la frase "irradiar no es peor que cocinar con respecto a la vitamina B1" sea engañosa; podría reducirse más al cocinar que al irradiar, haciendo válido su argumento. De hecho, lo único que indica es que hacer ambas cosas es peor que hacer cualquiera de ellas por separado.

Yo creo que la respuesta es la (C), por eliminación.

[Recobita]

Verbal (CR) (>700)

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

Solución propuesta:

respuesta: show

(A) Irrelevante
(B) Irrelevante
(C) El hecho de que la comida sea el último paso no aclara por qué es erróneo el planteamiento de los defensores de la irradiación de alimentos
(D) Da soporte a las ideas de los defensores de la irradiación de alimentos
(E) Sigue la lógica del argumento, indicando que el efecto detectado en comida cocinada puede no ser solo consecuencia de ser cocinada sino también de ser irradiada

La respuesta correcta es (E)