QUESTION TEXT: Which one of the following could the…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
ARGUMENTS: The proponent argues that irradiation leaves no radiation behind. And while it does destroy nutrients it doesn’t destroy any more nutrients than cooking does. The advantage to irradiation is that it prevents spoiling and also kills salmonella.
The opponent points out that it could kill the smelly bacteria that warn us of botulism. But botulism would survive. We could get very, very sick. Also, it’s easy to kill both salmonella and botulism using a chemical dip.
ANALYSIS: The proponent says we don’t lose any more nutrients than we do in cooking. But we still have to cook the food. So now we’re losing the nutrients twice: once from irradiation and a second time from cooking.
There could be a 20% loss during irradiation and a further 20% loss during cooking, for example. That’s not good.
The correct answer has to be about vitamins, in the irradiated food. A and E aren’t about vitamins. C and D don’t say anything about vitamins in food.
- This answer choice has nothing to do with vitamins. And this situation isn’t even a huge problem: presumably the food lasts longer than it would have without irradiation. All food spoils eventually.
- CORRECT. Vitamins are lost during irradiation, whether we cook the food or eat it raw.
- Yes, vitamin loss and safety are separate issues. But this doesn’t tell us anything about the proponent’s reasoning on vitamin loss.
- Pills have nothing to do with the issue of how much vitamin loss irradiation causes in foods.
- This answer choice has nothing to do with vitamins. And it’s not really a bad thing that irradiation helps sellers as long as it doesn’t hurt consumers.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions