I feel like you picked up on the wrong problem in their example... > Prius extends Car extends vehicle extends motor extends The problem isn't that it's too i

I feel like you picked up on the wrong problem in their example... > Prius extends Car extends vehicle extends motor extends The problem isn't that it's too in-depth, or too overbuilt, that answer is as close to objectively wrong as you get on a pretty open ended question and I'd imagine only an extremely junior developer would come up with that. For example, you could maybe argue that a model of car extends a specific car. I'd expect an experienced developer to favor composition over inheritance at that stage, but that's open to debate. But if a Vehicle extends a motor, does a motor extend a piston? Does a wheel extend a lug nut? At that point you're moving away from "arguably correct" to just plain failing to answer the question. It shows they don't know the difference between composition and inheritance. > It takes a brave interview candidate to say "the best solution depends on the exact nature of the problem - and your problem doesn't make any sense so there's no valid solution". You're free to ask questions, we're supposed to be trying to collaborate. I don't think it's "brave" to instead say "your problem doesn't make sense". Shows more hubris than anything. How is it any different than a systems design question?