The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sig

Question

The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. So why not have round shelves that rotate? Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.

Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?

(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical.

(B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door.

(C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes.

(D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change.

(E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.

kapslock · Accepted Answer

Since the argument against rotating shelves hinges on food getting spoild because it falls into the rear corners, it supposes the "existance" of such corners in the first place. The round rotating shelves can have corners only if they are in cuboidal refridgerators. Thus A.

JayKay · Answer

Ajith,

In my opinion, the tough part of the question is understanding the proposed design of the refrigerator. Once understood, We can approach the question just as we would approach any other assumption question.

It took me quiet a while to visualize the design discussed in the argument. The fridge retains the rectangular interior shape but the shelves are circular. So the shelves rotate but the area outside the circular shelf is fixed. Now, lets go to the stem. 
The proponent of the idea explains that in the proposed design food will be kept in the circular area and hence it will remain in sight. But the opponent argues that food will still be kept in the fixed area outside the circular shelf as otherwise it is likely to fall off.

Now moving to choices,

(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their 
 interior space is cylindrical.
 YES. If interior space is cylindrical, then food cannot be pushed to corners, where it will remain out of sight.

(B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a 
 window in front for easy viewing of their
 contents without opening the door.
 Even if window is provided, food can be pushed to corners where it will remain out of sight. 
 (C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is
 not amenable to any solution based on design
 changes.
 Extreme assumption. A typical wrong choice. Anyways, the explanation is that possibility of design change to provide a solution is outside the scope of the argument. The argument discusses the effectiveness of only one solution. 
 (D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are
 bound to be drawbacks to any design change.
 Similar to C 
 (E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate
 only while the refrigerator door was open.
 Similar to B. Food can still be pushed out of sight.

yavasani · Answer

apoorvasrivastva · Answer

for the argument to hold true we need to show that in any case food will fall or the corners will exist.
if the interior was cylindrical, then there would be no corners and, consequently, the author's objection would have no legs to stand on.

A says corners will exist ...hence A

on the contrary C goes to far...the author is only concerned with the rotating round shelf solution, so other solutions dont really affect the argument

Silvers · Answer

Can someone explain me the question stem! I was unable to figure out what the questions asked for.

"Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?"

gmatbull · Answer

The initial design fail because things fall out of sight at the back of the shelf.
The rotating design supposedly failed because the same drawback inherent
in the initial design remains. So, things will fall around the interior of the refrigerator.

That is what option A presupposed:
that "Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical."

AriBenCanaan · Answer

Here were my pre-phrases (I guess pre-phrasing is critical in assumption questions) before I looked at the answer choices.

Pre-phrase 1 - The 'rear corner' is equivalent to the back of the shelf and the food there is equally out of sight.
Pre-phrase 2 - The 'rear corner' exists in the refrigerator.

I looked at Answer choice A, and it matched exactly with pre-phrase 2!

vishnuns39620 · Answer

Premise - Refrigerated food gets spoiled, hence we need to have round-shelved refrigerators.

Argument - Things would fall off the shelve's edges into the rear corners

GAP IN ARGUMENT   - The round shelved refrigerators would have corners/rear gaps. We do not know exactly how these refrigerators are designed. So we need to look for an answer that explains this gap in the argument.

Option A best explains it in my opinion!

Hope it helps.

Regards,
Vishnu

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

It's more or less asking you for the assumption. The argument is that rotating shelves won't solve the problem because food will still fall into the hidden spaces of the fridge.

Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?

(A)  Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical.  The author has to believe that the new refrigerators would keep the old shape in order to assert that some food will remain hidden. If they make refrigerators with cylindrical interior spaces the food can't fall and be hidden. 
(B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door.  Easy front viewing is not the not relevant. 
(C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes. It only says that the rotating shelf is not the solution. 
(D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change.  Whether or not refrigerators are well designed isn't relevant. 
(E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open. When the shelves rotate isn't relevant.

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that rotating shelves would have the same sort of drawback since things would fall off the shelves edges into the rear corners
This is based on the fact that food that ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf ends up spoilt.

What is presupposed?

More importantly what bridges the gap between "corners" and rotating shelves?

A - I now see why this is correct. Cylinders obviously don't have corners, so the argument denies the potential for this to be a reality in assuming that corners exist
B - This doesn't need to be assumed in drawing a conclusion concerning the rejection of a plan to make rotating shelves.
C - Amenable means open and responsive. The argumentor doesn't need to assume that a problem is open to change based on design changes. This is too broad and vague.
D - We don't know that there aren't alternative solutions that work.
E - This is hardly the assumption. The assumption needs to bridge the gap between corners (new info) and shelves.

sayan640 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   GMATGuruNY

Can you please explain this question ?

gmatassassin88 · Answer

AjiteshArun   VeritasKarishma

i have doubt in understanding option D

usage of Idiom ' So X that Y' is used to show X= cause , Y= effect in a way He is So hardworking that he will ace the gmat.

However, in option D , Y= EFFECT seems to be the contrast of X= Cause i.e  so well designed that   there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change . How can be there drawbacks when something is so well designed.

Please help in comprehending & also the Impact of this option on the conclusion

KarishmaB · Answer

Refrigerated food spoils because it falls at the back of the shelf.

Plan: Have round shelves that rotate
Drawback of Plan: Round rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.

Question: What is presupposed in the drawback of plan?

(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical.

The drawback assumes that the refrigerator will still have rear corners. What if the fridge has cylindrical interior space? Then there will be no rear corners.

(B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door.

The argument does not talk about viewing from a closed door.

(C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes.

The drawback does not say that there is no design change based solution.

(D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change.

This option means that refrigerators are so well (perfectly) designed that any change you make to their design will lead to problems. 
The drawback does not say that every design change will have problems.

(E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
Door open or close is irrelevant.

Answer (A)

dcummins · Answer

Probably the biggest difference between A and C is the blowout of direction that C takes.

We don't need to presuppose that ANY design change won't rectify the issue, but we do need to presuppose that the actual fridge won't be made cylindrical to match the shelves in order to conclude that the food will still fall off into the corners.

AnandMan · Answer

is this really a 700+ level question?

myusername0100 · Answer

Where was this question taken from?

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

The conclusion here is that  the rotating round shelves wouldn't work because food would fall into the corners

Now let's apply the negation technique. 
We will negate each answer choice, and the negated answer choice that DESTROYS the conclusion will be the correct answer. 
 
(A) Refrigerators WOULD be made so that their interior space is cylindrical.
This negated answer choice destroys the conclusion that  the rotating round shelves wouldn't work because food would fall into the corners , there would no longer be any corners for the food to fall into. 
Keep A.

(B) Refrigerators WOULD be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door.
This does not destroy the conclusion that  the rotating round shelves wouldn't work because food would fall into the corners 
Eliminate B.

(C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food IS amenable to any solution based on design changes.
This does not destroy the conclusion. In fact, it strengthens the conclusion. 
Eliminate C.

(D) IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change.
This does not destroy the conclusion. 
Eliminate D.

(E) IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
This does not destroy the conclusion. 
Eliminate D.

Answer: A

RELATED VIDEO
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ytGsIigiw

palaknayyar · Answer

Negation of A breaks up the conclusion that food will fall off in the edges- a cylindrical refrigerator won't have edges. A is the best choice.

TargetKellogg2024 · Answer

The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. So why not have round shelves that rotate? Because such rotating shelves would have just the same sort of drawback, since things would fall off the shelves' edges into the rear corners.
 
Analysis: Food in the refrigerator gets spoilt because it could not be seen. Food in round shelves will also get spoilt because things would fall off the shelves' edges.

Which of the following is presupposed in the argument against introducing rotating shelves?

(A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical.
   Negation: Refrigerators will have cylindrical interior space
Analysis: If the refrigerators have cylindrical interior space then there won't be any edges. If there won't be any edges, the food won't fall off. Therefore, the reasoning that the author has provided does not hold true. Keep it!

(B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door.
   Negation: Refrigerators will have a front window for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door
Analysis: If the refrigerators have a front window for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door, we can still not see the food that has fallen off to the edges. Therefore, this is not necessary for the conclusion to hold true. Discard.

(C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes.
   No need to know the meaning of the word 'amenable'. This answer choice stretches the whole argument. It says that the problem with spoilage of food is not 'something' to any solution based on design changes. We are not speaking about whether ANY design can help fix the issue of the spoilage of food or not. We are concerned ONLY about the fact that round shelves are not going to prevent the spoilage of food. Discard.

(D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change.
   Again, this just generalizes the fact about design. We are concerned ONLY with the round shelves and not designs in general. Discard.

(E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open.
   Negation: Rotating shelves will rotate even when the refrigerator door is closed
Analysis: Could the food fall off the edges of the round shelves if the shelves rotate while the door is open or closed? Yes! Therefore, this cannot be the assumption. Discard.

Therefore,  the answer is (A)

The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sig

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The reason much refrigerated food spoils is that it ends up out of sig

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards