The Origins of Superior Performance

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: problematic cases5% picked this

   to illustrate the ways in which a revised theoretical model can be applied to problematic cases for which previous versions of the

   We are revising our model (or more properly, our understanding) of what causes superior performance. We used to think it was innate talent. Now we think it has more to do with sustained high-level training. According to this answer, most cases of superior performance were always explainable via the "innate talent" hypothesis, but there were some lingering problematic cases where they didn't have innate talent but did have superior performance. This revised theory (that says superior performance is more about sustained high-level training) can account for these problematic cases. But this passage wasn't saying, "we've revised the theory that innate talent causes superior performance" and then showing us examples of previously problematic cases that can now be explained. The passage was saying, "we're getting rid of that old theory that tried to explain most cases of superior performance as the result of innate talent, and we're replacing it with an understanding that most cases of superior performance are the result of sustained high-level training".

   5%
2. B

   Not the Same Evidence16% picked this

   to argue that the evidence that was previously taken to support a particular theory in fact

   This passage didn't say, "we ran the numbers again on this same evidence and arrived at a different conclusion". Rather, it said, "Until recently, however, little systematic research was done on the topic of superior performance .... Recent research in different domains suggests that ..." So the old theory was based on skimpy / little evidence. The new theory is based on brand new research.

   16%
3. C

   Correct65% picked this

   to show how a body of recent research provides evidence that certain views based on earlier research are not applicable to

   Why this is right

   This answer is an unlovable disaster that just ends up being our "best available". It's lovable in the very general sense that it conveys the right sense of "New research goes against old idea". But the details take a lot of "making peace" with. Is there "a body of recent research"? Yes, the 2nd paragraph's second sentence tells us that "recent research in a different domains of excellence suggests that superior performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations, rather from innate abilities". Is this research finding "evidence that certain views based on earlier research are not applicable to a particular class of cases"? The view based on earlier research was that "superior performance is caused by innate abilities", so yes this old view and this body of recent research definitely conflict; one is not applicable to the other. What was the earlier research that the Old view was based on? There was data concerning prodigies and the apparent heritability of relevant traits. There were examples of superior musicians, most of whom were already standouts by age six (suggesting innate gifts). What is the "particular class of cases" that the body of new research is dealing with? Our 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph just says, "in different domains of excellence". That's vague, but it is a particular class of cases. The passage also uses some specific examples, such as accomplished athletes and accomplished chess players. Overall, the "particular class of cases" gives off this vibe that the author was saying, "Superior performance is caused by intense training, within these specific fields", whereas the passage felt more like it was saying, "In general, superior performance is caused by intense training". This seems to be a totally unnecessary flourish the test writer chose in order to make this answer less attractive.

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

   65%
4. D

   Out of Scope: possible objections5% picked this

   to defend the author's new interpretation of data against probable objections that might be

   The author just presents a new way of accounting for superior performance, based on recent research data. There aren't any "potential objections" raised and addressed.

   5%
5. E

   Out of Scope9% picked this

   to explain how a set of newly formulated abstract theoretical postulations relates to a long-standing body of experimental data in a different,

   Out of Scope: set of new postulations This answer sounds way too technical for the fuzzy, real-world science we're talking about here. We're just wondering if Tiger Woods has some special innate gifts or just got insanely better than everyone else because he trained harder and practiced more. We don't have any abstract, theoretical postulations. The closest we have to that is one solitary postulation: exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations, rather than from innate abilities We definitely don't connect this one postulation to a long-standing body of evidence, since the Old theory was weakly supported ("little systematic research was done") and the New theory has recent research.

   9%