This is a nice example to show the illusion of explanatory depth [0]. Most people would say they know how a spray bottle works, but fail to describe all relevant details of the implementation,
This is a terrible example because its essentially a trick question. The illustration would highly depend on context.
Say you meet someone on the street and you casually ask them this question, or you ask this on a birthday. "Works" with regards to a refrigerator refers to "knowing how to operate", or perhaps the basics.
Whereas if its for the TV quiz program "engineering of the kitchen" or "an applicant for technician repairing Samsung's refrigerators", yes then its clear that more depth is meant.
That's not to say the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply here. Its just that there's a level set for a debate due to the context which then presets also the level of the expected answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...
(you can also buy the lectures in book form on Amazon.)
Having watched the first lecture, I was thoroughly impressed by the design and presentation of this historical artifact, with (judiciously chosen) modern embellishments.
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/W9rJv26sxs4g2B9bL/transcript...
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a25581/science-behi...
What’s great about that problem is that it isn’t obvious that there even is a problem in the first place. “How do trains stay on tracks? Well... they have wheels, don’t they?”
Then when the problem is explained, it sounds impossible. The solution you first think of is probably wrong.