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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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)

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - The conclusion is that round shelves will not solve the purpose because such rotating shelves will have the same drawback. What drawback? The things would fall off the shelves edges into the rear corners. Or we can look at it like this. There is a problem - much-refrigerated food spoils because it ends up out of sight at the back of the shelf. Solution - Let's have round shelves. The conclusion says there is a problem with the solution or plan because such rotating shelves will have the same drawback. What drawback? The things would fall off the shelves edges into the rear corners. One of the assumptions (which sounds ridiculous) is that we can't make the inside of the refrigerator cylindrical to fit the shape of rotating shelves. I said ridiculous because if someone proposed the round shelves, either they were dumb to fix the round shelves in the rectangular/square shape, or they provided an exquisite design with a cylindrical body and round shelves, but the author, instead of looking at the complete design, just looked at round shelves and gave a judgment that it's a ridiculous design assuming the interior body could not have been cylindrical. The reality could be that they acted dumb and, instead of looking at the complete design, gave judgment, making some ridiculous assumption. You'll say this happens regularly in our business dealings. That's why wisdom says to listen with two ears and speak with one mouth (listen more and speak less).

Sorry, I don't want to deviate from the topic. Let's quickly look at Option Elimination - (A) Refrigerators would not be made so that their interior space is cylindrical. -ok. Solves the purpose. (B) Refrigerators would not be made to have a window in front for easy viewing of their contents without opening the door. - It's talking about a different solution, which is not the scope of the argument. Out of scope. (C) The problem of spoilage of refrigerated food is not amenable to any solution based on design changes. - "Any solution" is hyperbolic. We are just talking about just one solution, which is using rotating shelves. Distortion. (D) Refrigerators are so well designed that there are bound to be drawbacks to any design change. - some general philosophy. Not relevant here. Out of scope. (E) Rotating shelves would be designed to rotate only while the refrigerator door was open. - doesn't matter as the food can still fall off the corners, or it'll go opposite of what we are looking for in the sense if the food only falls when the door opens, there is a possibility that it's not out of sight as we see it falling (I know its to far fetched with a lot more assumptions). Linkage of shelves with the door open/closed - out of scope.

KevinMercurio · Answer

Confused a ton by this question, first of all if there are rotating shelves there are no such corners as a circle will not have corners. Thus I eliminated A since it doesn't matter if the fridge is a cylinder, placement of the fridge in the house (i.e. against a wall would determine if something gets lost or not).

E was the only reasonable choice since if the shelves were to not only rotate when the fridge was opened but say randomly on their own at random times of the day, the statistical chance that some food prior was hidden would then come into seen.

Gmat860sanskar · Answer

Hey Kevin,

I want to break down the difference between the two designs, as getting a clear mental picture of this is key to understanding the question.

Here is the core issue with the first design: even if we use circular shelves, they are still being placed inside a traditional, rectangular refrigerator interior. If you visualize putting a circular object inside a rectangular box, there will always be empty spaces—or cavities—left in the corners. The argument in the prompt points out this exact flaw: people fear that objects will just fall off the rotating shelves into those deep corner cavities, which leaves us with the exact same problem of lost, spoiled food.

However, consider an alternative: what if the refrigerator's interior itself was cylindrical? If we put circular shelves inside a perfectly cylindrical space, they fit flush against the walls. There are no corner cavities left for food to fall into, making this the optimal design.

This is exactly why Choice A is the correct answer. It points out this exact possibility (that the interior doesn't  have  to be rectangular). If Choice A is true, it completely destroys the prompt's assumption, and the original conclusion falls apart.

I hope this helps clarify things!

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

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

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