PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 24
Car companies solicit consumer information on such human(64 more words not shown)
The reasoning above conforms most(8 more words not shown)
- AGetting consumer input(9 more words not shown)
- BCar companies traditionally(4 more words not shown)
- CDesigners aim to(9 more words not shown)
- DA car will(12 more words not shown)
- EConsumer input affects(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A low rating tells a designer something is wrong. Does it tell the designer what to build instead?
Imagine customers say a seat is uncomfortable. That's useful feedback, but it doesn't automatically tell us which change would solve the problem. Even knowing why they dislike the current seat may leave several possible redesigns. Interacting with the customers gives the designer a chance to work out what would actually be better.
That's the distinction the passage draws. Surveys can explain a poor rating for last year's feature, but direct interaction with consumers is better for figuring out the needed change. I can see the value in asking the people who will use the product rather than treating the rating alone as a complete set of design instructions.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which proposition this reasoning most closely fits. I'd look for a straightforward principle: consumer input can help designers make better products. Keep it modest. We haven't established that designers always need that input, that it guarantees success, or that it matters only for a particular kind of feature.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Consumer input can contribute to successful design. The passage's comparison of surveys with direct interaction makes sense on that basis: learning from consumers can help the designer work out useful modifications. “Can contribute” allows that benefit without claiming it always guarantees a good product.
- B
The passage tells us companies solicit consumer information. It doesn't establish that they traditionally conduct extensive surveys after products reach the market. “Traditionally” and “extensive” add details about established industry practice that we weren't given. They also miss the reasoning about which kind of input helps with modifications.
- C
Designers might try to appeal to particular market niches, but the passage doesn't make that point. It concerns getting useful feedback about features. Those consumers could be a specialized group or a broad market; the argument doesn't require either.
- D
Without consumer consultation, the car must have unappealing features? That is much stronger than saying consultation can help. A designer could happen to create an appealing car without asking consumers. The passage doesn't rule that out. D turns a useful contribution into an absolute requirement.
- E
We aren't told consumer input affects external design instead of internal design. In fact, the examples include seat comfort and ease of using controls. The argument is about improving features through consumer input, not excluding the interior of the car from that input.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.