I hear what you’re saying, but really, this is a stupid question and a waste of everyone’s time. Instead you could give a real big report that has insufficient information or that contains a red herring to an improper assumption. The interviewer could then measure if the candidate properly pushed back, exposed an improper assumption and asked relevant clarifying questions. Like one would do at the actual job exhibiting the characteristics the question purports to measure.

The car example is just stupid. Could you image how idiotic you’d sound beginning by asking is it a real car? You’re basically accusing your interlocutor of operating in bad faith (which they were).