#16 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[katehos]

Hi flowskiferda!

While paragraph 2 certainly discusses studies that measure how much acquired skills vs innate abilities impact performance, this doesn't mean we can perfectly measure innate talent or that (A) is disproven. Answer choice (A) makes a fairly limited claim about how, in at least some (1 or more) fields, it would be difficult to distinguish a superior performer with exceptional training has superior talent; so, even if we can measure innate talent to some degree, that doesn't mean we can always measure innate talent.

With this in mind, we can indeed find support for (A) in lines 51-57, which discuss how extended training and competent talent can account for the difference between good and outstanding (superior). This indicates to us that once one achieves a superior level of performance with extensive training, we can't really tell if they have simply competent talent or innate talent -- they're too similar!

I hope this helps!
-Kate

[Catallus]

Why is (C) wrong? I don't see how it's an opposite answer and thought there was direct textual support for this choice. We are told that "Recent research shows that, with the clear exception of some traits such as height, a surprisingly large number of anatomical characteristics . . . develop from extended intense training." So, there's an exception—an innate trait that is surely relevant to some fields of human endeavor, like certain athletic pursuits. Contrast that with activities like chess: the author implies that exceptional innate talent is not a prerequisite here.

(A), by contrast, seemed directly contradicted. As far as "ascertain[ing] whether or not a superior performer with extensive training has exceptional innate talent," an endeavor that (A) describes as "difficult, or perhaps even impossible," we are in fact given two examples of researchers testing exactly that: chess players' memory for configurations and athletes' reaction-time advantages. The author cites these examples to support the proposition that "Recent research in different domains of excellence suggests that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills . . . rather than from innate abilities." There is no qualification here—the research is not inconclusive; it's reliable. (A) would give us reason to doubt the researchers' findings, yet the author states them in remarkably definitive terms.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Catallus,

As so often happens, the problem with Answer C mainly comes down to one word. Answer C describes "exceptional innate talent" (my emphasis) while your quote from the passage "with the clear exception of some traits such as height" (my emphasis)(lines 46-47) refers to "traits." Not all traits are talents. The first definition that I found for talent is "natural aptitude or skill." Height, the example given, would not be considered a talent even though it is a trait. One wouldn't usually say, "I have a talent for being very tall."

As for Answer A, if you haven't already done so, I recommend first reading the other instructor explanations for this question (especially Robert's and Kate's, as they specifically discuss the support for Answer A). I will only add that the wording in Answer A is more modest and less certain/absolute than you may have realized. It's just saying that "in at least some fields of human endeavor, it would be difficult, or perhaps even impossible" (my emphasis). Even if researchers were able to devise a study to correctly test specific aspects of specific performances in certain fields, that doesn't mean that it would be "easy."

Finally if you reread the quote "Recent research in different domains of excellence suggests that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills . . . rather than from innate abilities" (my emphasis)(lines 23-27), you may notice that this is not stated as definitely as you may have thought, and it certainly leaves open the possibility that it may be difficult to ascertain the differences in some cases.