Ergonomics vs Technology

[vabhs192003]

A cause of fatal mining accidents was once the peculiar configuration of
the controls on the trams shuttling along mineshafts. Each tram had a
steering wheel that rose straight up from the floor, with a brake pedal on
one side and an accelerator pedal on the other. There was no room to
turn the tram around, so to reverse direction the driver simply took a
seat on the other side of the steering wheel, whereupon what had been
the brake became the accelerator, and vice versa. While this may sound
ingenious, it proved disastrous.

Many people set an electric burner on high thinking that it will heat up
faster that way: they have the mental model of a gas stove, whose knobs
actually do increase the heat's intensity. On an electric stove, however,
the knob is merely a switch that turns on the burner and then turns it off
when a certain temperature is reached.
Consider the humble wristwatch, which has been transformed into a
kind of wrist-mounted personal computer, with a digital display and a
calculator pad whose buttons are too small to be pressed by a human
fingertip. By replacing the watch's conventional stem-winding mechanism
with a mystifying arrangement of tiny buttons, the manufacturers created
a watch that was hard to reset.

One leading manufacturer was distressed to discover that a line of its
particularly advanced digitals was being returned as defective by the
thousands, even though the watches actually worked perfectly well.
Further investigation revealed that they were coming back soon after
purchase and thereafter in two large batches-in the spring and the fall,
when the time changed.

Charles Mauro, a consultant in New York City, is a prominent member
of a branch of engineering generally known as ergonomics, or humanfactors-
the only field specifically addressing the question of product
usability. Mauro was brought in to provide some help to the watch
manufacturer, which was experiencing what Mauro calls the "•complexity
problem. With complexity defined as a fundamental mismatch between
the demands of a technology and the capabilities of its user, the term
nicely captures the essence of our current technological predicament.

A growing number of technologists speak of user-centred design as a
means of scrupulously maintaining the user's perspective from start to
finish, adding technology only where necessary. When confronted by
some mystifying piece of high-tech gadgetry, consumers naturally feel
that there is something wrong with them if they can't figure it out. In
truth it is usually not their fault. Mauro attributes the confusion to the
fact that most products are "•technology-driven,their nature determined
not by consumers and their needs and desires but by engineers who are
too often entranced with the myriad capabilities of the microprocessors
that lie at the devices' hearts.



Q.When consumers feel that there is something wrong with them if they can't
figure a high-tech gadget out, which of the following assumptions are they
making?
A. The gadget was designed for ready use by the average consumer.
B. Technology can only be understood by engineer-types.
C. The gadget designers were blind to the consumers' needs.
D. Everyone is equally capable of understanding new technology.
E. they are not as intelligent as the other person

OA: A


I need explanations for this OA. I am unable to understand this straight.

[sathishkumarjva9888]

Can you please state the source of this question.

Looking at the passage, people feel that there is something wrong with them and not with the device. So, the answer choice must say there is no problem with the device.

Only A and E stand as contenders to me. But E could a better strengthener and not an assumption.

Hence A is the right answer.

Negating A - The gadget is not to be used by an average consumer. Hence, people cannot feel that something is wrong with them.

[vabhs192003]

The source is RC99-Aristotle.

My line of thinking is, when people find out they cant use the device as desired, they start doubting themselves. Does putting their intelligence in question, as a result of this stretches the argument a bit too far.

I was looking at this question more from cause and effect point of view, where in people cant work with the device[cause]and hence they look for demerits in their understanding,hence put their intelligence in question.[effect]
However the way you looked at it, also makes sense. But during exam time it could be a tricky one.

[sathishkumarjva9888]

To me, RC assumption questions, unlike CR assumption question, is less likely to have subtle answers.

The above question is more likely to appear in a CR from what i have seen.

Lets hope for the best of our reasoning during the test.

[Sapana]

very interesting article!!

[Bpetteway]

What was the OA answer?

[Bpetteway]

I chose C.

[ceilidh.erickson]

This question is not close at all to a real GMAT RC question, so I wouldn't recommend using it to study.

For one thing, the GMAT will not ask about assumptions on RC passages - those are reserved for CR questions.

For another, the wording of the question was pretty awful:

Q.When consumers feel that there is something wrong with them if they can't
figure a high-tech gadget out, which of the following assumptions are they
making?

The use of "feel" is too colloquial for the GMAT - they would likely saying some like "Consumers who believe that a lack of understanding of a high-tech device is a personal failing..."

[tanviet]

we normally can understand the main idea fully or parly when we read only the firt part of the passage. for Aristonle passages, we understand the main idea after we read total passages. but because rc is the only section of gmat which requires terriblly much practice, we can read Aristone passage after we read other material fluently.

I am looking for new and gmat like passages. where to find them. The contrast is that we , non native, need to read many passages but the number of passages in the prep books is the less then the number of cr ans sc questions.