Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S4 P3 Q15 Explanation

The Origins of Superior Performance

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

TopicsParagraph PurposeSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

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 exceptional athletic performance, including superior motor coordination, speed of reflexes, and hand-eye coordination, can be inborn.

Until recently, however, little systematic research was done on the topic of superior performance, and previous estimates of the heritability of traits relevant to performance were based almost exclusively on random samples of the general population rather than on studies of highly trained superior performers as compared with the general population. Recent memory for configurations of chess pieces, but only if those configurations are typical of chess games.

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. Only extremely rarely is outstanding performance achieved without at least ten years of intensive, deliberate practice. With such intensive training, chess players who may not have superior innate capacity and the percentage of muscle fibers, show specific changes that develop from extended intense training.

The evidence does not, therefore, 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 common to all reasonably competent performers, may suffice to motivational factors are more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance than is innate talent.

What this question is testing

Paragraph Purpose

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

Which one of the following most accurately represents the primary function of

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: educational reform1% picked this

    It makes proposals for educational reform based on the evidence cited

    The author might lightly propose some new directions for research ("how well do motivational factors predict mastery?"), but she certainly doesn't dedicate that last paragraph to proposing we reform our educational system.

  2. Too Strong: demonstrates Unsupported: at odds4% picked this

    It demonstrates that two consequences of the findings regarding superior performance are at odds

    The verb 'demonstrate' or 'prove' is almost always too strong. Our authors are dealing with thorny complexity, so they "argue / suggest / undermine". They usually don't do anything so black and white as prove or demonstrate. Beyond that, the author is never pointing out that two implications are at odds with another. She's saying "Innate, you're wrong". "Acquired, you seem right". "Okay, one implication of Acquired is that motivational factors will matter a lot."

  3. Unsupported: recapitulates Too Strong: advocates29% picked this

    It recapitulates the evidence against the supposed heritability of outstanding talent and advocates a particular direction to be taken in

    To recapitulate is "to list all over again", "to re-summarize", i.e. "to provide a recap." The evidence against innate talent (the supposed heritability of outstanding talent) appears in the end of the 2nd and throughout the 3rd. There's no recap of it in the 4th paragraph. The author just asserts, "all that evidence we just discussed, therefore, goes against innate talent and for acquired talent." The author also does not advocate a new research direction. She points out a potential implication of the acquired-talent explanation. We might imagine how some researchers could choose to pursue research on that topic, but the author doesn't have any language that is recommending that researchers study this.

  4. Unsupported: Possible Objection5% picked this

    It raises and answers a possible objection to the author's view of the importance

    There's no possible objection to the acquired-talent hypothesis presented in the 4th paragraph (or anywhere else in the passage). It would make more sense to say that this paragraph "summarizes the author's view of the importance of intense training".

  5. Correct62% picked this

    It draws two inferences regarding the explanatory and predictive roles of possible factors in the

    Why this is right

    Drawing an inference = drawing a conclusion Does the author draw two conclusions in this paragraph? Let's look for keywords. Indeed! The first sentence is a conclusion: The evidence, therefore, does not support claim X, since it suggests instead that claim Y. The second sentence (jeez, this paragraph is only two sentences!?) is also a conclusion. Since sustained training depends on Y, and since elite performers usually show Z, [we can conclude that] motivation factors are more A than innate talent is. Okay, all the keywords make it relatively quick to see that, yes, this paragraph draws two conclusions. Do they regard the explanatory and predictive roles of possible factors involved in mastery? (I am so angry at this answer and the test that wrote it) Yes, answer, they do. The first sentence is a conclusion about the explanatory role of a factor in the development of mastery. It's saying that "extended intense training (+ all required physical traits) may suffice to account for (i.e. "explain") elite performers". The second sentence is a conclusion about the predictive role of motivation. If mastery is linked to training time, then motivation to train should be a potentially effective predictor of superior performance.

    Skill tested: Paragraph Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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