Manufacturing technicians and engineers favor product teardowns, the time-honored practice of dismantling products—their own firm's and its competitor...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Manufacturing technicians and engineers favor product teardowns, the time-honored practice of dismantling products—their own firm's and its competitors'—to spark fresh thinking. Yet few manufacturers get the full value that teardowns afford. Many senior executives discourage the practice, and by viewing teardowns as unsupervised exercises for engineers or cost-cutting tactics for the purchasing department, they retard creativity and leave the ideas generated in teardowns unexplored.
Not so for a medical products company that used teardowns to improve its electronic medical device. To foster new ideas, the company's senior executives invited employees from the purchasing, marketing, engineering, and sales departments to compare their product to rival products. Seeing the products together allowed the purchasing department to quickly identify simple design changes that, while invisible to customers, significantly lowered manufacturing costs.
Additionally, seeing the configurations of competitors' electronic circuit boards spurred the team to discuss the manufacturing implications of the company's modular approach to design. The engineers had long assumed that letting customers, when purchasing, select various options was advantageous and had emphasized this in the product's design. Yet the salespeople reported that customers rarely took advantage of the capability. The conversations ultimately led to simplifications in the product's circuitry, significantly lowering costs, and also helped marketers identify a new customer segment where the product might command a higher price.
Ques. 1/3
The information in the passage provides the most support for which of the following statements about what the salespeople reported having observed in relation to customer behavior ( see highlighted text )?
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Manufacturing technicians and engineers favor product teardowns, the time-honored practice of dismantling products—their own firm's and its competitors'—to spark fresh thinking. | What it says: Engineers like taking apart products (both their own and competitors') to get new ideas. What it does: Introduces the main concept and sets up the topic Source/Type: Factual statement about industry practice Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Engineers → Take apart products → Get fresh ideas Company A's product + Competitor B's product → Dismantle both → New insights Reading Strategy Insight: The author helpfully defines "teardowns" right in the sentence with a dash explanation. This is the author making things easier, not harder. What We Know So Far: Teardowns exist and engineers like them for generating ideas What We Don't Know Yet: Any problems with this practice or specific examples |
| Yet few manufacturers get the full value that teardowns afford. | What it says: Most companies aren't getting all the benefits they could from teardowns. What it does: Introduces a problem/contrast with the previous positive statement Source/Type: Author's assessment of current industry practice Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 told us: Engineers favor teardowns for fresh thinking - NOW Sentence 2: BUT most companies aren't maximizing this benefit - This creates a classic problem-solution setup Visualization: Potential teardown value: 100% What most companies actually get: 30-40% Gap = Missed opportunity Reading Strategy Insight: The word "Yet" signals we're staying on the same topic but introducing a problem. This isn't new complexity - it's setting up the passage structure. What We Know So Far: Teardowns are good, but companies aren't maximizing their value What We Don't Know Yet: Why companies aren't getting full value, or what full value looks like |
| Many senior executives discourage the practice, and by viewing teardowns as unsupervised exercises for engineers or cost-cutting tactics for the purchasing department, they retard creativity and leave the ideas generated in teardowns unexplored. | What it says: Senior managers don't like teardowns and see them as just random engineer activities or simple cost-cutting, which kills creativity and wastes ideas. What it does: Explains WHY companies don't get full value (answers the question from sentence 2) Source/Type: Author's explanation of executive behavior and its consequences Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 2 told us: Companies don't get full value from teardowns - NOW Sentence 3: HERE'S WHY - executives discourage the practice - This directly explains the problem introduced in sentence 2 Visualization: Executive view: Teardowns = Unsupervised engineers + Basic cost-cutting Reality: Teardowns = Creativity + Unexplored valuable ideas Result: Wasted potential Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is explanation, not new complexity! The author is helping us understand the problem better. What We Know So Far: Teardowns are valuable, most companies waste this value because executives misunderstand what teardowns can do What We Don't Know Yet: What a good example looks like |
| Not so for a medical products company that used teardowns to improve its electronic medical device. | What it says: But one medical device company DID get it right and used teardowns effectively. What it does: Transitions to a positive example that will contrast with the problem just described Source/Type: Introduction to a case study/example Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentences 2-3 told us: Most companies waste teardown potential because executives discourage it - NOW Sentence 4: HERE'S A COMPANY THAT DID IT RIGHT - "Not so" directly contrasts with the negative pattern Visualization: Most companies: Problem described in sentences 2-3 vs. This medical company: Success story (details coming) Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC pattern! Problem introduced, now we get the contrasting success story. The structure is becoming predictable and helpful. What We Know So Far: General teardown problems + one company that avoided these problems What We Don't Know Yet: Specific details of what this company did right |
| To foster new ideas, the company's senior executives invited employees from the purchasing, marketing, engineering, and sales departments to compare their product to rival products. | What it says: The smart executives brought together people from 4 different departments to compare their product with competitors' products. What it does: Shows the FIRST smart thing the successful company did Source/Type: Specific detail of the case study Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 3 told us: Bad executives discourage teardowns and see them as just for engineers - NOW Sentence 5: GOOD executives actively encourage teardowns and involve multiple departments - This is a direct contrast showing the right way to do it Visualization: Bad approach: Engineers alone + Discouraged by executives vs. Good approach: Purchasing + Marketing + Engineering + Sales + Encouraged by executives Reading Strategy Insight: This directly answers "how to do teardowns right" - it's the opposite of what sentence 3 described as wrong. What We Know So Far: The solution is multi-department collaboration encouraged by executives What We Don't Know Yet: What specific benefits this approach produced |
| Seeing the products together allowed the purchasing department to quickly identify simple design changes that, while invisible to customers, significantly lowered manufacturing costs. | What it says: When purchasing people could see all the products side-by-side, they spotted easy design tweaks that customers wouldn't notice but that would save money in manufacturing. What it does: Provides the FIRST specific benefit of the multi-department approach Source/Type: Concrete result from the case study Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 5 told us: They brought multiple departments together to compare products - NOW Sentence 6: HERE'S ONE BENEFIT - purchasing found cost savings - This shows the multi-department approach paying off Visualization: Purchasing team sees: Product A + Product B + Product C side by side Result: "We can change this part to save 15% on manufacturing, and customers won't even notice!" Reading Strategy Insight: This is proof that the approach works! We're getting concrete benefits, not just theory. What We Know So Far: Multi-department teardowns work - purchasing alone found significant cost savings What We Don't Know Yet: Whether other departments found benefits too |
| Additionally, seeing the configurations of competitors' electronic circuit boards spurred the team to discuss the manufacturing implications of the company's modular approach to design. | What it says: Also, looking at how competitors set up their electronic parts made the whole team talk about how their own flexible design approach affected manufacturing. What it does: Shows a SECOND benefit - broader strategic discussion triggered by the comparison Source/Type: Additional concrete result from the case study Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 6 told us: First benefit was cost savings from purchasing - NOW Sentence 7: SECOND benefit - strategic discussion about design approach - "Additionally" signals we're getting more benefits, building the success story Visualization: Team looks at: Competitor circuit boards (simple, fixed design) vs. Their own: Modular, flexible design Discussion: "What are the trade-offs of our approach?" Reading Strategy Insight: The benefits are multiplying! "Additionally" tells us we're building a list of successes, not introducing new problems. What We Know So Far: Multi-department approach yielded cost savings AND strategic insights What We Don't Know Yet: What the strategic discussion revealed |
| The engineers had long assumed that letting customers, when purchasing, select various options was advantageous and had emphasized this in the product's design. | What it says: The engineers always thought it was good to let customers choose different options when buying, so they built the product that way. What it does: Explains the engineering team's original assumption about customer choice Source/Type: Background information about the engineering team's thinking Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 7 told us: The team discussed their modular design approach - NOW Sentence 8: HERE'S WHAT THE ENGINEERS BELIEVED about that approach - This sets up the engineering perspective before we learn what the discussion revealed Visualization: Engineers' assumption: More customer options = Better product = Happy customers Product design: Built with lots of modular choices Reading Strategy Insight: This is setup information - we're getting the "before" picture of what engineers thought before the teardown discussion. What We Know So Far: Engineers designed for customer choice based on their assumptions What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this assumption was correct |
| Yet the salespeople reported that customers rarely took advantage of the capability. | What it says: But the sales team said customers almost never actually used those choice options. What it does: Reveals that the engineers' assumption was wrong Source/Type: Sales team's real-world feedback contradicting engineering assumptions Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 8 told us: Engineers assumed customers wanted lots of options - NOW Sentence 9: BUT sales team reveals customers don't actually use these options - "Yet" signals the contrast between assumption and reality Visualization: Engineer assumption: Customers will love having 10 different options Sales reality: 95% of customers just pick the standard configuration Reading Strategy Insight: This is the key insight! The multi-department approach revealed a false assumption. This is why you need multiple perspectives. What We Know So Far: The teardown discussion revealed engineers' assumptions about customer choice were wrong What We Don't Know Yet: What they did with this insight |
| The conversations ultimately led to simplifications in the product's circuitry, significantly lowering costs, and also helped marketers identify a new customer segment where the product might command a higher price. | What it says: These discussions resulted in making the electronic parts simpler (which saved money) and helped marketing find a new group of customers who might pay more for the product. What it does: Shows the final business results - both cost savings and revenue opportunities Source/Type: Final outcomes of the successful teardown process Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentences 6-9 told us: The process revealed cost savings opportunities and false assumptions about customer choice - NOW Sentence 10: HERE ARE THE FINAL BUSINESS RESULTS - lower costs AND higher revenue potential - "The conversations ultimately led to" directly connects the discussions to concrete business outcomes Visualization: Before: Complex, expensive circuitry + Standard pricing + One customer segment After: Simplified, cheaper circuitry + Higher prices possible + New customer segment identified Result: Lower costs + Higher revenues = Big win Reading Strategy Insight: This is the triumphant conclusion! The passage structure is: Problem → Solution → Multiple Benefits → Final Business Success. Very clean and reinforcing. Final Summary - What We Know: When executives encourage multi-department teardowns (instead of discouraging them), companies can find cost savings, challenge false assumptions, and discover new opportunities. The medical device company proves this approach works. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To demonstrate how companies can maximize the benefits of product teardowns by showing the contrast between typical failed approaches and a successful multi-department strategy.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first presenting a problem, then offering a solution through a real example:
- First, the author introduces product teardowns as a popular practice among engineers for generating fresh ideas.
- Next, they identify the core problem: most companies waste the potential of teardowns because senior executives discourage the practice and view it too narrowly.
- Then, they present a contrasting success story of a medical device company whose executives took the opposite approach by actively encouraging teardowns and involving multiple departments.
- Finally, they detail the multiple business benefits this company achieved, including cost savings, corrected false assumptions, and new revenue opportunities.
Main Point:
Companies can unlock much greater value from product teardowns when senior executives actively support the practice and involve people from different departments, rather than treating teardowns as isolated engineering exercises.
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what the passage supports about "what the salespeople reported having observed in relation to customer behavior." The key phrase is highlighted: "Yet the salespeople reported that customers rarely took advantage of the capability." We need to find what this observation reveals or implies.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we identified a crucial sequence:
- Engineers assumed customers wanted multiple options and designed accordingly
- The multi-department teardown discussion revealed different perspectives
- Salespeople reported customers rarely used the option capabilities
- This led to product simplifications and cost savings
The salespeople's observation directly contradicted the engineers' long-held assumption about customer behavior. This contradiction was only discovered because the successful company brought multiple departments together.
Prethinking:
The salespeople's report that "customers rarely took advantage of the capability" directly challenged the engineers' assumption that "letting customers, when purchasing, select various options was advantageous." This is a classic case of real-world data contradicting design assumptions. The passage structure shows this contradiction led to positive business outcomes, suggesting the salespeople's observation called into question the engineers' foundational design assumption.
Answer Choices Explained
A
The senior executives of the medical products company had previously been aware of what the salespeople reported having observed.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage gives no indication that senior executives previously knew about customer usage patterns
- The teardown discussion appears to be the first time this information was shared across departments
- If executives already knew, there would be no reason for the "conversations" to lead to changes
Common Student Mistakes:
- Don't executives usually know everything about their products?
→ The passage specifically shows executives often discourage cross-department communication, limiting their knowledge - Wouldn't sales data be automatically shared?
→ The passage demonstrates that valuable insights often remain siloed within departments
B
The salespeople, in reporting their observations, were focused primarily on generating new customer segments for the marketers.
Why It's Wrong:
- The salespeople were participating in a teardown discussion, not specifically trying to help marketers
- The passage shows they were reporting observations about existing customer behavior, not seeking new segments
- New customer segments were a result of the discussion, not the salespeople's primary focus
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since marketers found new segments, weren't salespeople trying to help them?
→ Correlation doesn't equal intention; the salespeople were sharing observations, not strategizing - Don't sales and marketing always work together?
→ The passage shows departments often work in isolation until brought together intentionally
C
The salespeople's observations called into question one of the engineers' assumptions about the design of the company's device.
Why It's Right:
- The engineers assumed customer choice was "advantageous" and designed accordingly
- The salespeople reported customers "rarely took advantage of the capability"
- This directly contradicts and calls into question the engineers' design assumption
- The passage shows this questioning led to beneficial product changes
Key Evidence: "The engineers had long assumed that letting customers, when purchasing, select various options was advantageous and had emphasized this in the product's design. Yet the salespeople reported that customers rarely took advantage of the capability."
D
The salespeople were themselves surprised by what they had observed.
Why It's Wrong:
- Nothing in the passage suggests the salespeople were surprised by their own observations
- The passage presents their report as factual information, not as a surprising discovery
- Salespeople would likely be aware of customer usage patterns through regular interactions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Wouldn't it be surprising that customers don't use options they're given?
→ What's surprising to engineers isn't necessarily surprising to salespeople who interact with customers daily - The word "Yet" suggests surprise, doesn't it?
→ "Yet" shows contrast between engineering assumptions and sales reality, not sales team surprise
E
In reporting as they did, the salespeople did not intend to advocate changes in the design of the company's device.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't indicate the salespeople had any specific intention regarding design advocacy
- They were participating in a collaborative discussion and sharing their observations
- Whether they intended to advocate for changes is not addressed in the passage
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since changes resulted, didn't they intend to advocate for them?
→ Results don't prove intention; they were sharing observations, and others drew conclusions - Isn't sharing negative feedback the same as advocating for change?
→ Reporting factual observations differs from actively advocating for specific design changes
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More