Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plastic cutting boards, but bacteria can penetrate wooden cutting boards almost immediate in leaving the surface free of contamination. Therefore, wooden cutting boards, unlike plastic cutting boards, need not be washed in order to prevent their contaminating food that is cut on them; wiping them off to remove food debris is sufficient.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
An assumption question requires to find the choice that connects the premise with the conclusion,
(A) Washing plastic cutting boards does not remove all bacteria from the surface.
The argument is mainly about the wooden board and does not focus on the plastic cutting board,and if we do the negation test then also it does not impact the conclusion.(B) Prevention of bacteria contamination is the only respect in which wooden cutting boards are superior to plastic cutting boards.
The boards are compared based on the bacterial infestation on the board and no other parameter so not relevant.(C) Food that is not already contaminated with bacteria can be contaminated only by being cut on contaminated cutting boards.
Clearly out of scope(D) Bacteria that penetrate into wooden cutting boards do not reemerge on the surface after the cutting boards have been used.
The concern is that will the wooden board be free of bacteria and as the premise suggest that the bacteria seeps into the inner layer of the wood and leaving the outer layer free and if the bacteria can reemerge on the surface then the conclusion will be false and this the point if not true will make the argument false.so this is the corect choice.(E) Washing wooden cutting boards kills bacteria below the surface of the cutting boards.
washing of the wooden cutting board is not suggested in the argument and only wiping them off is mentioned so washing will be out of scope.