Q16

[sbkress]

Can someone please explain why the answer is "A"? I see nothing in the passage that would lead one to infer that in some fields it would be impossible to ascertain the influence of exceptional innate talent.

[connorjmacleod]

Answer A is supported from several different parts of the passage. Lines 45-50 state that even anatomical changes such as aerobic capacity and muscle fibers can change through extensive training. Thus, it would be incredibly difficult or even impossible to tell if superior performance due to these anomalies is from innate talent or from extensive training. The last paragraph of the passage also supports A in stating that innate talent is not necessary for excellence, but it has the possibly to still be a factor -- implying that one is unable to tell which factor is responsible.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response!

This is a weird Inference question, in the sense that the correct answer is more like a Main Point.

Normally, the correct answer to Inference is a paraphrase of a single line reference or a synthesis of two line references.

If you revisit the correct answer (D) to the Main Point question, the passage argues that top performers may have reached their peak through intense training rather than from innate abilities.

The passage set out by discussing the belief, in line 6, that "some notion of innate talent must be invoked" to explain these superstars. This belief has been supported by data/examples discussed in lines 8-16.

But then the rest of the passage undercuts this by pointing out how common it is for superstars to have changed themselves behaviorally and physiologically through years and years of training.

So once we’re looking at a 30 year old superstar - her talents, her body, her mind, etc. - how would we be able to tell whether she had a leg up to begin with or whether she just steadily cultivated the abilities and attributes she now has. That’s what (A) is getting at.

As always, though, our best chance at any Inference question is by getting rid of 4 wrong answers.

The most common deal breakers to RC Inference answer choices are unsupported
- extreme language
- comparisons
- out of scope ideas


(B) This is extreme and it runs against the gist of the entire passage. Superstar performance generally REQUIRES innate taken and many years of practice?

(C) "Prerequisite" is extreme and again this runs counter to the gist of the passage. Did the passage specify any fields for which innate talent is REQUIRED? I can’t find any lines to support that.

(D) The idea that innate talent is an OBSTACLE that results in COMPLACENCY is out of scope.

(E) This seems close to (A). It fits the gist of the passage, saying that motivation/interest are what’s contributing to excellence, rather than innate ability.

If we’re down to (A) vs. (E), we need to consider strength of language. Which of these is stronger, more dangerous? Which of these is safer, easier to support?

They’re both saying "in at least some fields", so that’s a tie.

(A) is saying that something would be difficult, or perhaps impossible (you seemed to latch onto this extreme word, but because it’s prefaced by "˜perhaps’ the author is only committing himself to "˜difficult’).

(E) is saying that something "does not depend in any way" on something else.

Comparing those two, claiming that something would be difficult is less extreme than claiming that something "does not depend in any way" on something else.

Difficulty is a safer, shades of grey type idea. "Does not depend in any way" is black and white.

If we revisit lines 51-57, where the author sums up his position on the research, we see softer language. You don’t HAVE to explain superstar performance using innate talent. (you still COULD)
Training, coupled with a certain common baseline of talent, MAY suffice to account for this difference.

We also have the last sentence saying that motivational factors might be a better predictor than innate talent of superior performance. But this just means that many people may have innate talent but not go on to be superior performers. However, it’s clearer that if they DON’T have the interest/motivation to pursue years and years of practice, then it is safer to conclude that they WON’T go on to be superior performers.

So while I agree that (A) is a tough answer to love, it’s more supportable and compatible with the passage than any other answer.

[yasemin_erkan_]

The response above makes sense in many ways but I still think (C) makes more sense than (A).

I don't think it runs against the gist of the passage because the passage is only talking about certain fields of human endeavour - so innate talent can still be a prerequisite for exceptional performance in some other fields.

In particular, there is support for (C) in line 45: "Recent research shows that, with the clear exception of some traits such as height, a surprisingly large number of anatomical characteristics .. show specific changes that develop from extended training"

So, there are traits like height that cannot be improved through training - and there is nothing to suggest that there aren't sports or other fields of human endeavour that require such traits in exceptional quantity/quality, making the said traits a prerequisite for exceptional performance. Granted 'height' isn't really a 'talent' but neither is 'reaction time', which is given as an example of exceptionality in line 29.

I can't find much support for (A) anywhere in the passage.

[judaydaday]

Ahh. I had found support for (c) in lines 39- 41 "Only extremely rare is outstanding performance achieved without at least ten years of intensive, deliberate practice." This sounds like superior performance is sometimes attributable to innate talent. But like the above post said,I guess to say that it is a PREREQUISITE is out of scope. Also, these lines to not support a comparison between two diffeerent fields of human endeavor.

The reason I eliminated (a) is probably due to a misread. For some reason, I read it as ascertaining between extensive training and exceptional innate talent. BUT it actually reads read: to ascertain whether or not a superior performer WITH extensive training..."

[513852276]

For C, it is contrary to line 55-57, as "extended intense training+common talent" could be a sufficient condition for "difference between good and outstanding performance", so exceptional innate talent may not be a prerequisite. The author do not state what accounts for "innate talents necessary for exceptional performance", and factors most likely to be included are from line 13-16, however, they may likely to be enhanced by intensive training (the author does not rule out this possibility). So, "height" may be an unchangeable trait, but we don't know whether it is an innate talent is a prerequisite to exceptional performance.

To reject "innate talent" explanation, the most relevant evidence is whether there are some exceptional performers without exceptional innate talents. However, the author never explicitly proves there are. Indeed, the author give some suggestions. First, those exceptional traits regarded as inborn could also be gained by extended training (paragraph 3). So, extended training explanation is possible! In paragraph 2, the author suggests exceptional performance possess exceptional traits specific to their field (e.g. chess player), thus it is more likely to be a trained result rather than an result of inborn (as inborn traits could adapt more fields). Hence, the author is bias towards "extended training" explanation. However, the author never 100% prove this explanation. Hence, it probably because there is no solid evidence that exceptional performer can have common talents. So, A is the most probable choice.

The response above makes sense in many ways but I still think (C) makes more sense than (A).

I don't think it runs against the gist of the passage because the passage is only talking about certain fields of human endeavour - so innate talent can still be a prerequisite for exceptional performance in some other fields.

In particular, there is support for (C) in line 45: "Recent research shows that, with the clear exception of some traits such as height, a surprisingly large number of anatomical characteristics .. show specific changes that develop from extended training"

So, there are traits like height that cannot be improved through training - and there is nothing to suggest that there aren't sports or other fields of human endeavour that require such traits in exceptional quantity/quality, making the said traits a prerequisite for exceptional performance. Granted 'height' isn't really a 'talent' but neither is 'reaction time', which is given as an example of exceptionality in line 29.

I can't find much support for (A) anywhere in the passage.

[alexia.jablonski]

I eliminated (A) because the notion that it is difficult or impossible to ascertain whether a superior performer has innate talent is contradicted by the research design discussed in lines 23-35. The research sets out to identify whether high performers are necessarily born with innate talent, and by showing that they can only perform well in their particular area, they conclude that they don't have exceptionally high innate talent. Why is (A) correct, if the research design is based on the assumption that you CAN ascertain whether someone has exceptional innate talent? Am I missing something?

[JesseR524]

I'm with you. The passage explicitly states that "research suggests that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills...rather than from innate abilities." To me this is a clear indication that the author believes that it's possible, at least in some cases, that skills are responsible for performance rather than innate talent. Answer a states that it would be difficult..."or even impossible" to ascertain whether a superior performer with extensive training has exceptional talent...if it was impossible to do so, then how can research possibly suggest thatany performances arise predominantly from acquired skills?

Anyways.