Reading Comprehension

PT140 · S4 · P3 · Q14 The Origins of Superior Performance

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In certain fields of human endeavor, such as music, chess, and some athletic activities, the performance of the best practitioners is so outstanding, so superior even to the performance of other highly experienced individuals in the field, that some people believe some notion of innate talent must be invoked to account for this highest level of performance.

Topic

Superior performance (the super elite athletes, performers, specialists, in any given field).

Frameworks

Answer a Question What causes elite performance? Some people - innate talent Author -- Nah, mostly acquired skills

Old / New Old - we used to assume elite performance came from innate talent. New - now we think it comes from mostly acquired skills

Challenge a Position Position -- some notion of innate talent must be invoked to explain why elite performers are so much better than their peers. Author's Challenge -- no, the real difference-makers are motivation and practice. The elite performers had all the necessary traits and just added 10+ years of intense training.

Main Point

Superior performance is probably less about innate talent and more about skills / physiological changes acquired through long, intense training, for which motivation may be the best predictor.

P1 - Intro to Topic, Position 1 (Old)

This paragraph introduces the concept of superior performance, then introduces the Position that the passage will be challenging: innate talent must be part of what explains elite performance. This view is supplemented with some data.

P2 - Pivot to New, Evidence against Old

We get a doubleheader Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently). This introduces the New position, which the Author will ultimately endorse: acquired skills are the bigger part of elite performance,

The author shows evidence against the idea that the magic abilities of elite performers are innate gifts, rather than specialized capacities gained through training.

P3 - Evidence Supporting New

Here the author talks about how all these elite performers had over a decade of intense training. The paragraph suggests that training brings about these superpowers. You can get the chess master's mind or you can get the fast twitch fibers of whatever sporting action you're perfecting, if you train hard for at least a decade. Only some traits like height are beyond the reach of being acquired through training.

P4 - Summary of Challenge

The author makes more explicit that she accepts this New explanation (elite performance comes mainly through acquired factors) as the truth and then she speculates on an implication of that view: if elite performance is mainly based on how much you practice, then motivation is really the special sauce of the masters.

14.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

Researchers have recently found that
Wrong Emphasis: lacks central topic
The main clause here says Researchers have found that many inborn traits can be altered through training and practice. Yes, that's true, but this passage is all about "superior performance". You forgot to mention the main character!
3% picked this
Recent research into the origins
Too Strong: anyone
This is pretty close, "Research into superior performance says that anyone can achieve exceptional levels." We're looking for, "Research into superior performance says that innate talent is not required." The author didn't say that every single person can be Lebron James or Albert Einstein. She said that "extended intense training, together with that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers, may suffice". If you are reasonably competent, and then you put in the ten years of intense sustained practice, then you can be a virtuoso in your field. But there's still some minimum requirements. Not everyone can do it.
12% picked this
Contrary to previously accepted theories
Too Strong: irrelevant Unsupported: previously accepted
This is pretty close: "New research into expertise says that innate talent is irrelevant to reaching superstar status." We're looking for, "New research into expertise says that innate talent is not required for reaching superstar status." Also, this claims that the position in the first paragraph was a "previously accepted theory". The position in the first paragraph is just "certain psychologists".
6% picked this
Correct
Recent research involving superior performers
Why this is right
The main clause of this sentence is that "new research in superior performance says that people become superstars through training rather than because of innate traits." That aligns with our Most Valuable Sentence, at the beginning of the final paragraph. The part about "various fields" is supported by the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph: "Recent research in different domains of excellence suggests that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations, rather than from innate abilities". This answer choice matches up best with that line from the passage, which was essentially the sentence distilling the takeaway from the new research.
Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% picked this
Psychologists who previously attributed early
Unsupported: revised their theories
We start with certain psychologists in the 1st paragraph, as a point of view the author is going to challenge. The rest of the passage consists of the author showing how new research challenges the position of those psychologists. We never hear about these psychologists going, "You're right, author. We're revising our theories. Thanks for showing us the truth". This answer is saying that the passage told us a story in which psychologists changed their beliefs.
6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free