The Origins of Superior Performance

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct25% picked this

   In at least some fields of human endeavor, it would be difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to ascertain whether or not a superior performer

   Why this is right

   We can ignore the "or perhaps even impossible", because an author isn't ever committing to a perhaps idea. If we say, "Billy is going to have a great game today, perhaps he'll even hit the winning shot!", we've only committed to the idea that he's going to have great game today. The only way we would be wrong is if he didn't have a great game. The only way (A) could be wrong is if "in ALL fields of human endeavor, it would be easy to tell whether a superior performer, who had been extensively trained, has exceptional innate talent". All it takes for (A) to be right is at least one example where it would be tricky to tell whether a superior performer who has had extensive training started off with exceptional innate talent. Because this answer choice is saying something so weak, it's pretty easy to agree with it. There isn't one specific line of the passage that provides good direct support, but it's more the gist of what this passage is all about. Our first sentence was about the idea that some people think that superior performers must have exceptional innate talent, but then the passage basically goes on to try to convince us it's really a murky, questionable speculation. Hence, it would be difficult to tell whether a highly trained superior performer was awesome because they had exceptional innate talent, or whether they just had sufficient innate capacity and then they trained themselves up into superior performance. The middle of the 2nd paragraph says that "Recent research .. suggests that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired skills and adaptations, not from innate abilities." The beginning of the 3rd paragraph says that "the vast majority of exceptional adult performers weren't exceptional as children". The middle of that paragraph says that "with intensive training, chess players who may not have superior innate capacities can acquire skills that circumvent basic limits on such [innate] factors as memory and the ability to process information". This is probably our best proof sentence for (A). In the field of chess, it would be difficult to look at highly trained master chess players and know whether they had exceptional innate talent (better than average memory and information processing) or whether they had normal innate abilities and "acquired skills that circumvent" those basic limits.

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

   25%
2. B

   Too Strong: generally requires Opposite11% picked this

   Performance at the very highest level generally requires both the highest level of innate talent and many years

   The author doesn't carve out a distinction for the very highest level of performers, saying that they need both the innate and the training. The last paragraph is saying we don't need to invoke any notion of innate talent in order to explain the difference between good and outstanding.

   11%
3. C

   Too Strong: prerequisite Opposite4% picked this

   Exceptional innate talent is a prerequisite to exceptional performance in some fields of human endeavor

   The gist of the passage is that you don't need to assume that master performers had exceptional innate talent; it's possible they had very normal talents and trained their way into being superlative performers.

   4%
4. D

   Out of Scope: complacency2% picked this

   Exceptional innate talent is probably an obstacle to the development of superior performance, since such

   The one obstacle to superior performance identified in the last paragraph is that if someone isn't motivated to practice a ton, then that will be their obstacle to becoming a superior performer. There's no causal connection between having exceptional innate talent and therefore lacking motivation. If we're telling ourselves a story that "she's so good at X that she's bored by how much better she is than everyone else, so she doesn't bother practicing as much as others, gets complacent, and others pass her by", then we are not doing what we need to do which is to find supporting text in the passage to justify our answer. The passage does not bring up complacency at all.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong59% picked this

   The importance of motivation and interest in the development of superior performance shows that in some fields the production of exceptional skill does not

   Too Strong: does not depend in any way Contradicted This sounds worryingly strong. The author said that motivational factors are likely to be better predictors of superior performance than is innate talent, but that's not as strong as saying innate talent has no bearing whatsoever. In fact, in the beginning of the last paragraph, the author says that "extended training, together with that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers may suffice to explain good vs. outstanding". There, she is making it sound like superior performance does depend on having at least that level of innate talent common to all reasonably competent performers.

   59%