After a second thought, E sounds better. The conclusion of the argument is that: "this fact is either beside the point or else misleading". Here this fact means "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking". The author supports the first conclusion "beside the point" by pointing out that the comparison is irrelevent because irradiation is for a different application; E pointing out that if both cooking and irradiation is necessary (Premise for the discussion!!), irradiation would bring additional B1 reduction because they are compounded, therefore E points out that the proponents, by comparing B1 reduction between irradiation and cooking, rather than between irradiation and cooking plus irradiation, draw misleading conclusion. To make C correct answer, 2 assumptions are necessary. First, irradiated perishable foods are cooked before consumption, this assumption can be draw from the choice. Second, the reduction by irradiation plus cooking is compounded. Without the second assumption, redution of both processes together may be just equal to the higher reduction of these two idividual processes; thus the proponents' conclusion that irridation is no worse is possibly standable. Therefore, C may not lead to misleading. |