Winston: The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate that no more

Exactly the reason I didn't choose E. "Inaccurate" can also mean that those who got Nobel prize were not deserving of the prize. Very greyish statement. Not fully convinced.

(E) Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their disciplines

E is the only choice that makes sense.

If lets say Mr. A doesn't get the nobel prize for a great scientific contribution made by him, coz he is dead. Hence the absence of nobel award does not make him a poor scientist or that he hasn't make contribution.

The point talks about a scientist contribution and not as scientist community or many scientist. Even one is enough.

Winstone says that prize can't be shared by more than three people, now the issue is in scientific disciplines prizes are generally given scientific results which are the results of the work of 4 or more scientists implying it's not easy to get a Nobel prize in the scientific discipline

Sanjay says that the winner should be living and highly influential scientists died before work was fully appreciated, hence again they won't get any prize

(A) The rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes should be changed so that prizes can be awarded to deceased persons - They never implied that rule should be changed but only hinted that winning a prize in the scientific community is hard

(B) The rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should be different from the rules for other Nobel Prizes - A comparison was never made in the argument

(C) Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should not be given in recognition of particular scientific results - Not mentioned by anyone

(D) The evaluation of individual achievement in science is a highly subjective matter - Not mentioned by anyone

(E) Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their disciplines - Hmm.. this aligns without pre-thinking that it is hard to get a Nobel prize in the scientific community, so yeah they are not the accurate indicator of a scientists' contribution to the discipline, maybe a group of 5 scientists published the result of some experiment which showed that it is possible to travel to the edge of Milk-way galaxy in a couple of hours (Just fantasizing) but those 5 never got the Nobel prize because of the stupid rule, hence it is not the accurate judgement

If the statement read "new rules" E was not correct. All other option brings in new information .For instance, "B" adds comparison. E holds good with this new term I across for C.R---> "Linear Logic".

I don't know about this one...To me, I am leaning towards B. Both Winston and Sanjay express that there is a gap in the current process for rewarding scientists - it fails to take into account more than 3 scientists and dead scientists...

"many important results are the worst of..." and "...died before their work was fully appreciated" signals to me that we can infer that they both agree that perhaps a change in the rules is warranted.

So using tonality, I would say B is more consistent with the two individuals.

While I also picked B, I kind of get why E is correct here. Hence, sharing my 2 cents here -

I'd agree that in a broader sense we can infer both from the passage. Of course Sanjay and Winston do not appreciate the rules of awarding the science nobel prize. They are criticising it. And it can of course be inferred that they do not find these rules to be inappropriate/incorrect/inaccurate. If they are calling something inaccurate, of course they would want the rules to change right? Yes!

But the problem with B is that it mentions other nobel prizes. We have no idea how these other prizes are awarded. It is possible that another discipline has similar rules hence that would need to be changed as well. (It is possible that "mathematics" follows similar rules, and winston and Sanjay might advocate for maths and science to follow the same, but a new set of rules). If B had simply said rules for science need to be different that they currently are, that would have been a real pain. But thankfully, we do not know anything about other disciplines and can hence reject this.

For E, I see that people have mentioned that we cannot discredit the achievement of the winners, i.e those who have been awarded with prize as per the current rules and hence the rules cannot be inaccurate. Now, We dont need to discredit the winners. Those decisions would probably be accurate, I agree. But picture this scenario, what if somebody whose scientific result was 100 times more important than that of winner of the 2019 nobel prize for science, but he wasn't awarded the prize as he is dead. Is that really accurate? More importantly, is the process behind the award accurate? Even if I say that 99% (over exaggerating here) of the times the decision is right, I can clearly see that the decision making behind the award is inaccurate. (You wouldn't consider it a good study session if you got 20 questions correct but the decision making behind getting those questions right was flawed).

I hope this helps!

Winston: The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate that no more than three people can share the same prize. Nobel Prizes in the scientific disciplines are generally given in recognition of particular scientific results, however, and many important results are the work of four or more scientists.

Sanjay: Those rules also stipulate that prize winners must be living, but some highly influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated.

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Winston and Sanjay agree that:

(A) The rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes should be changed so that prizes can be awarded to deceased persons
-there is no hint of this from either speaker

(B) The rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should be different from the rules for other Nobel Prizes

-same as A

(C) Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should not be given in recognition of particular scientific results
-same as A

(D) The evaluation of individual achievement in science is a highly subjective matter
-same as A

(E) Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their disciplines
Correct. Why? Winston thinks that the fourth person is missing out even though he/she contributed to the results. On the other hand, Sanjay acknowledges that some people don't get the recognition because they are dead.

E would be more convincing if it were stated this way:

The lack of a Nobel prize is not an indicator of a scientist's incompetence.

In the current form, the statement implies that the current awardees are undeserving, which is not what the stimulus explicitly supports. Sure, the current awardees may be less deserving than the people who couldn't win because of the rules, but that doesn't mean the current awardees are not deserving at all.

Winston says that some researches are contributed by four or more scientists but "The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate that no more than three people can share the same prize.". Problem 1.
Sanjay says the recipient must be living but "some highly influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated.". Problem 2.
We can decipher from the above problems that due to the rules set to award the Nobel Prize, deserving scientists are not given proper recognition for their efforts. Option (E) matches.

why E is correct -

reading the argument one assumes sanjay's statement is a counter argument when it is not - he is just adding to winston's point about not more than 3 people sharing the award while more contributed by saying deceased also do not get the recognition

i believe that confused people in evaluating the argument.