Final answer:
While targets need to be flexible and reasonable, the avoidance of trade-offs is not always possible or beneficial. Specificity in targets is necessary to make them actionable, and trade-offs may need to be considered to balance different aims. Targets should also be achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that “Targets should be flexible, not overly specific, avoid trade-offs, reasonable, and easily perceived by stakeholders” is not entirely true. While it's important for targets to be reasonable and perceived by stakeholders, it is not always beneficial for them to avoid trade-offs or to be overly flexible. Targets should indeed be flexible to adapt to changes, but they also need to be sufficiently specific to be actionable. Trade-offs may need to be considered to balance different objectives. For a target to be effective, it has to be Achievable (realistic, attainable, barriers could be overcome), Relevant (supports other goals, makes sense), and Time-bound (has a specific target date or deadline). Additionally, the complexities of decision-making suggest that majority rule can indeed fail to deliver a single preferred outcome when there are more than two choices, signifying the need for a well-structured approach to target setting.
Furthermore, the insight developed in setting targets should be based on reasonable choices for measurable criteria. The use of multiple perspectives in problem-solving is also encouraged, as it provides validation and promotes greater flexibility. In scientific experiments, while not all can be conducted on humans due to ethical considerations, it is generally true that larger sample sizes yield more reliable data than smaller ones. In the context of economics, embracing gains from trade and subsequently utilizing policy tools to handle costs and trade-offs is often favored over avoiding trade to escape its associated challenges.