Dear
AjiteshArun,
When I see choice E., I thought "
attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion" was spot on.
The stimulus says "
the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts, whereas academic economists have lifelong tenure". I thought the author tries to say that:
1. The investment companies' economists are serious about their jobs. They work hard to make the prediction.
2. Academic economists are frivolous. They may not pay much attention to their jobs because regardless of their accuracy in their prediction they are not gonna get fired anyway!
In short, the stimulus talks about
work ethics - their work style - and their
professional motivation. Nowhere is stated about their past performance, recognition from economist society, their publish papers,... Just very subjective speculation.
Moreover, when I look up in the dictionary (
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /character), it doesn't necessarily connote the
moral quality. The dictionary says it means "
the particular combination of qualities in a person or place that makes them different from others" IMO, character could mean any distinct characteristic. So, I think work style could count as one's character.
However, in choice D., I hesitate to say that the stimulus contains any "assessment".
Why my thinking is wrong here?
Thank you sir!
I think one way to think about this is to ask ourselves what would happen if the roles were reversed. That is, if the academics were also given the same motivation, would their results be as reliable? If there is something that is fundamentally wrong with the way they do things, something inherently wrong, then we'd expect that their results would not be reliable even when their jobs are on the line.
But if their results are more reliable when they are given that motivation, that would indicate that it is not their character that is flawed (it's just the circumstances). This is why, in the absence of further information, I would not automatically take this to be an attack on their character.