A Marxist sociologist has argued that racism stems from the class struggle that is unique to the capitalist system– that racial prejudice is generated by capitalists as a means of controlling workers. His thesis works relatively well when applied to discrimination against Blacks in the United States, but his definition of racial prejudice as “racially-based negative prejudgments against a group generally accepted as a race in any given region of ethnic competition,” can be interpreted as also including hostility toward such ethnic groups as the Chinese in California and the Jews in medieval Europe. However, since prejudice against these latter peoples was not inspired by capitalists, he has to reason that such antagonisms were not really based on race. He disposes thusly (albeit unconvincingly) of both the intolerance faced by Jews before the rise of capitalism and the early twentieth-century discrimination against Oriental people in California, which, inconveniently was instigated by workers.
I am facing a problem in determining the right answer and finding the evidence from the passage
The author considers the Marxist sociologist’s thesis about the origins of racial prejudice to be
A. unoriginal
B. unpersuasive (the passage mentions “thusly (albeit unconvincingly)”)
C. offensive
D. obscure (the passage mentions “can be interpreted as also”. If a theory or an argument can be interpreted in different ways does that mean that it is unclear and vague?)
E. speculative
The answer is “unpersuasive”.