* Tough One

[navdeep_bajwa]

OG 12th edition
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


Can you please explain why answwr is E and not A or C

[Ben Ku]

Please cite the source (author) of this problem. We cannot reply unless a source is cited (and, if no source is cited, we will have to delete the post!). Thanks.