Point out inconsistencies and contradictions in the literature and offer possible explanations for inconsistencies.

There are a few inconsistencies in the literature that may be worth noting. Firstly, it appears there is some disagreement over the best approach for measuring risk when looking at investments. While some suggest using traditional methods like beta or standard deviation others advocate more modern techniques such as Monte Carlo simulations. This could be due to the fact that different authors have their own views on how best to measure risk and what data should be taken into consideration when doing so.

Another inconsistency can be seen in the discussion around diversification where some writers argue that it is necessary for reducing portfolio volatility while others claim that it does not always provide adequate protection against market downturns. This discrepancy could potentially arise from an incomplete understanding of how much diversification is truly needed or simply due to differences in opinion regarding its effectiveness as a tool for managing risk.

Overall then, these contradictions exist due mainly to varying opinions among authors regarding certain aspects of finance and investing which can lead readers to draw conflicting conclusions based on what material they are exposed too. It is therefore up to individuals engaging with this literature to decide which arguments they find most convincing before making any decisions based on them.