Q15

[ttunden]

Can anyone explain this question? I correctly picked E but was hesitant since C was tempting.

I only picked E because I felt it did a better job of capturing the authors opinion in that paragraph. C was tempting because it does appear the author recapitulates(summarizes) the evidence against heritability(old theory) and then advocates a particular direction to be taken in future research(interest/desire more likely to be effective predictor of superior performance).

your thoughts Manhattan Staff?

[ohthatpatrick]

This question essentially tests our Passage Map, assuming we mentally made one after reading the passage.

My passage map might have looked something like this:

P1: Old thinking (misconception)
superior performance primarily a result of innate ability

P2: New thinking (new research)
superior performance comes from acquired skills and adaptations, not innate stuff

P3: Evidence for New Thinking
- kids aren't great, need ten years
- specialized skills only apply to the well-rehearsed task, don't generalize like an innate mental faculty would
- even anatomic changes may be biased by training, not innate factors

P4: Summary + Slight Tweak to New Thinking
Innate NOT the main deal.
Learned stuff and time spent practicing more important.
Thus, early motivation to learn/practice is probably most important predictor.

(A) no proposals for educational reform

(B) no contradiction amongst the findings

(C) similar to (A), how does it "propose reform" or "advocate a new direction"? The fact that it identifies motivational factors as the most important predictor doesn't mean that the author is prescribing anything. Also, it recapitulates the CONCLUSION against the supposed heritability, not the EVIDENCE. The evidence was in P3.

(D) There is no objection to training.

(E) Super weird wording, but we could say one can EXPLAIN superior performance as "normal baseline level of proficiency + LOTS of time practicing/training", and we can PREDICT superior performance by looking at how motivated kids are to practice/train when they are young.

Hope this helps.

[ttunden]

Thanks bud

[coldnjl]

I have a question with AC B. Two consequences are demonstrated here: extended intense training and not innate ability is important for performance success. However, aren't they at odds as suggested by B. In lines 61-62, does't the phrase "show early signs of exceptional interest than early evidence of unusual ability" show an innate component of the performer is important for success? Therefore, aren't they at odds with each other?

[king_matt]

I have a question with AC B. Two consequences are demonstrated here: extended intense training and not innate ability is important for performance success. However, aren't they at odds as suggested by B. In lines 61-62, does't the phrase "show early signs of exceptional interest than early evidence of unusual ability" show an innate component of the performer is important for success? Therefore, aren't they at odds with each other?

I think you may have misread what was said, the paragraph you are referring to is referencing the evidence from the recent more indepth research. The paragraph previous to the one you quoted discusses that the recent research shows that contrary to the previous random samples' claim,

"The vast majority of exceptional adult performers were not exceptional as children, but started instruction early and improved their performance through sustained high-level training."

The paragraph then expands on this point by explaining that with the exception of rare cases, most outstanding performance is achieved with at least 10 years of intensive training.

The paragraph that you referenced is making the point that this evidence does not support the "claim that a notion of innate talent must be invoked in order to account for the difference between good and outstanding performance, since it suggests instead that extended intense training, together with that level of talent ... may suffice to account for this difference"

Your quote comes at the tail end of this same paragraph when the author is saying that the aforementioned intensive training normally depends on an appropriate level of interest from the trainee to complete said training.

Hope that helps, that's how I read the paragraph in question anyway.

[ganbayou]

What are "Two inferences"? Intensive training and motivation?

[JorieB701]

What are "Two inferences"? Intensive training and motivation?

I'm not an LSAT geek but yes I do believe the inferences they're referring to are regarding intensive training and motivation. So, the author is inferring, based on the research, that extended intensive training is a better explanation between good and outstanding performance. (lines 53-57) And that motivational factors, rather than innate talents, are more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance. (lines 59-64)