Jon Goff on trade studies, and why you can use them to justify almost any answer you want.

I've always found it amusing that many studies wind up presenting three options: one that is insanely ambitious, one that is too mundane to consider, and a "balanced" option that includes elements of both. Obviously, the proposing team wanted the "balanced" option all along. The decision maker then gets to make what appears to be a considered choice without really having to think too hard about it.

Out of curiosity, why is this called a "trade study"?

Because you're "trading" one feature (say, technological maturity) that one option has for another (such as performance) that a different option has.