#14 - Global Reference, Main Point

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=13369)

The correct answer choice is (D)

This question asks for the main point of the passage. As discussed above, the author’s main point is that superior performers’ extraordinary abilities appear, based on the available evidence, to be attributable to long term extensive training rather than innate abilities.

Answer choice (A): On line 47 the author provides that many characteristics can be altered with long term intense training. This is not, however, the main point of the passage. Rather, it is a premise provided in support of the notion that superior performance more likely comes from long-term practice rather than innate ability.

Answer choice (B): The author does not assert that anyone can achieve exceptional levels, but rather that a certain capacity, coupled with long-term intense training can lead to exceptional performance.

Answer choice (C): The author does not assert that innate ability is irrelevant, but rather that early competence, interest, and motivation appear to be better predictors of extraordinary performance than innate ability. This choice is too extreme to even pass the Fact Test, so it cannot be the right answer to this Main Point question.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the author’s main point is that research suggests that training adaptations, rather than innate ability, may be the cause of superior performance.

Answer choice (E): This is a fairly clever wrong answer choice. The passage states that certain psychologists have, in the past, attributed superior performance to innate talent, and that more recent research leads to a different conclusion. But this does not mean that the same psychologists who had attributed superior performance to innate talent have changed their opinions, This choice does not even pass the Fact Test, so it cannot be the right answer to this Main Point question.

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

Aside from (A) not being the main point of the passage, does (A) also present information that is inaccurate?

Here is my thought:

(A) says that inborn traits such as "physical characteristics" and "motivational factors" can be changed by training.

First, the author only mentions "motivational factors" in the last paragraph as a more effective predictor of superior performance. The author never says that "motivational factors" are inborn traits, so it is already strange for (A) to present "motivational factors" as one of the inborn traits.

Second, I think line 47 of the passage could support that "physical characteristics" can be changed by training, and I think the changeable characteristics listed in line 47 could possibly be considered "inborn characteristics. However, there is no information anywhere in the passage that suggests that "motivational factors" can be changed by training.

Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks in advance!

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

I have another question regarding answer choice (D).

Even though I chose (D) during practice, I was a little unsure about the accuracy of the information presented in (D).

My question is below:

In the fourth paragraph, the author explicitly says that "extended training" plus "talent common to all reasonably competent performers" can be enough to account for the difference between good performance and outstanding performance.

Thus, it seems to me that no matter how much more weight the author gives to "extended training" than to "innate talent," the author is still conceding that "talent common to all reasonably competent performers" is to some extent one of the causes of the difference between good performance and outstanding performance.

However, by saying that "outstanding performance may result from adaptations due to training rather than from innate factors," (D) seems to conclude that outstanding performance can result from training alone. Isn't that a bit inaccurate?

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

E was initially quite tempting but what stood out was the removal of athletics in the answer.

[Adam Tyson]

A more important problem with answer E is that the passage is not primarily about superior performance in children, but in adults. The passage acknowledges that some children are prodigies, but that superior performance later in life need not rely on being a prodigy and having innate talent. But you're right that ignoring athletics does make this answer even worse!

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

I tried to figure out the question I wrote in my September post (the second one) again, but I still feel somewhat confused about it...Could anyone please help me with it?

Big thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The passage indicates that some level of innate talent is necessary to be reasonably competent, but that outstanding performance could be due simply to training. I read that, and answer D, as meaning that getting from being merely competent to the point at which your performance is outstanding could be due entirely to training. Not that all of one's ability comes from training, but all of the difference between those who are outstanding and those who are merely competent could be due to training. It's about what "may suffice to account for this difference." That's what makes answer D completely palatable to me.

Also note that answer D is about "adaptations," which you might think of as changes above and beyond the basic level of competence. The research indicates that one could start with a basic level of competency, but then all of those adaptations leading to outstanding performance could be due to training rather than special talents. The basic level of talent isn't an adaptation - it's a baseline, a starting point. No further talent is needed.

[lsatstudent99966]

The passage indicates that some level of innate talent is necessary to be reasonably competent, but that outstanding performance could be due simply to training. I read that, and answer D, as meaning that getting from being merely competent to the point at which your performance is outstanding could be due entirely to training. Not that all of one's ability comes from training, but all of the difference between those who are outstanding and those who are merely competent could be due to training. It's about what "may suffice to account for this difference." That's what makes answer D completely palatable to me.

Also note that answer D is about "adaptations," which you might think of as changes above and beyond the basic level of competence. The research indicates that one could start with a basic level of competency, but then all of those adaptations leading to outstanding performance could be due to training rather than special talents. The basic level of talent isn't an adaptation - it's a baseline, a starting point. No further talent is needed.

Hi Adam,

Thank you so much for the clear explanation. It is very persuasive. But there are still two little points that make me struggle:

1. I feel like it would make perfect sense if the passage is saying "getting from being merely competent to the point at which your performance is outstanding could be due entirely to training". I feel like this sounds pretty reasonable and will solve my question.

However, on the other hand, the passage states that: "extended intense training together with that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers, may suffice to account for this difference." And by "this difference", the passage refers to "the difference between good and outstanding performance". So it seems to suggest that "that level of talent come to all reasonably competent performers" must also be invoked if we were to account for this difference between good and outstanding performance?

2. I probably understand what you mean by: " answer D is about 'adaptations'". However, I feel like we can only read it this way if we read (D) as saying: outstanding performance may result from adaptations due to "training" rather than from "innate talent"; but couldn't D be very well as saying: outstanding performance may result from "adaptations due to training" rather than "innate talent"?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lsatstudent,

My reading of "extended intense training together with that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers, may suffice to account for this difference" (lines 55-57) is that the "level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers" is simply a caveat that all outstanding performers must have a minimum level of talent/competency. In other words, the passage is not claiming that anyone can achieve outstanding levels of performance simply with enough training regardless of ability. Notice that the difference being described in that line is between good and outstanding performance. (This is mentioned earlier in the sentence). It is understood in context that good performers would have "the level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers" because "good" implies "reasonably competent" at a minimum. Since both good and outstanding performers share this common level of reasonably competent talent, that is not part of the difference between them.

You wrote:

1. I feel like it would make perfect sense if the passage is saying "getting from being merely competent to the point at which your performance is outstanding could be due entirely to training". I feel like this sounds pretty reasonable and will solve my question.

This is basically what the passage is saying.

An examination of the first half of the sentence quoted above helps make this clear. "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" (lines 51-54). Since innate talent does not need to be invoked based on the evidence to account for the difference, innate talent (beyond a reasonable competency minimum) is not a necessary part of the explanation.