#15 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

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

The correct answer choice is (E)

This question asks for the main purpose of the last paragraph; as discussed above, in the final paragraph, the author concludes that evidence suggests that intense long term training, rather than innate talent, is a more likely basis for superior performance. Such long term training requires sufficient motivation, so that seems a better predictor of superior performance than innate talent.

Answer choice (A): The author makes no proposals for educational reform in the last paragraph, so this cannot be the right answer choice.

Answer choice (B): The last paragraph does not demonstrate two consequences that are at odds with each other, so this choice fails the Fact Test and should be ruled out of contention in response to this Must Be True question.

Answer choice (C): The last paragraph does not restate the evidence against the heritability of talent. Further, it does provide that early motivation factors appear to be better predictors of superior performance, but the author does not advocate a particular direction for future research on the topic.

Answer choice (D): There is no possible objection to the author’s view that is raised and then answered, so this choice fails the Fact Test and cannot be the right answer.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The inferences are that evidence suggests that it is not innate talent, but long term intense training, that lead to superior performance, and that early motivation factors, rather than innate talent, can be a better predictor of eventual superior performance.

[lday4]

Is the reason C is wrong because the author isn't presenting evidence against outstanding talent being an inherited trait but against outstanding talent being some that is just innate?

Thanks!

[Eric Ockert]

(C) can most easily be eliminated due to the language "...advocates a particular direction to be taken in future research on the topic." This advocacy never occurred.

Remember, Primary Purpose/Function questions operate in a similar fashion to Method of Reasoning questions on Logical Reasoning. Your correct answer is typically very abstract, yet it must ultimately be a PROVABLY ACCURATE description of what the author did or did not do in the passage. Many answers, like (C), introduce descriptions of things that never actually appeared in the stimulus.

In (C), while it would not be surprising to see this author ultimately take the discussion of "interest and desire" that was present in the final paragraph, and then go on to advocate future research into this field, the author never actually did advocate such a direction. Thus, the last half of answer (C) is an INACCURATE description of the third paragraph.

Hope that helps!

[15veries]

Hi, are "2 inferences" motivation and intensive training?

[Claire Horan]

Good question! An inference is a conclusion reached from evidence and reasoning. Therefore, an inference needs to be a full sentence, not just a topic.

The author says that the evidence "suggests instead [of innate ability] that (55) extended intense training, together with that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers, may suffice to account for this difference." That is one inference. The "factors" here are intense training and a threshold level of talent.

The second inference follows: "Since sustained intense training usually depends on an appropriate level of interest and desire, and since those (60) who eventually become superior performers more often show early signs of exceptional interest than early evidence of unusual ability, motivational factors are more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance than is innate talent." The "factors" here are motivational factors, including exceptional interest.

[snowy]

Hi! I chose C for this question, and I'm still confused about why C is incorrect and why E is correct.

In regards to C: to me, the first sentence of the final paragraph (51-57) seemed to be reiterating the evidence against supposed heritability since everything that was asserted there was either explicitly or implicitly stated previously (perhaps with the minor exception of needing a basic level of talent). Then, I thought that the last clause of the paragraph, "motivational factors are more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance than is innate talent" was a subtle suggestion for a particular direction to be taken in future research. This is a new concept/idea that the author is introducing at the very end of the passage, and it seemed to be framed in a way that was seeking to shift the conversation towards a more plausible cause, which fit the description of C. Where am I going wrong here?

For E: Claire's explanation of the second inference makes sense to me, but the first one still doesn't seem like an inference to me. As I said above, it seemed like everything that was stated in that first sentence of the final paragraph was already stated previously, which means that the final paragraph itself isn't drawing the inference like the answer choice says. The only thing in the first sentence that I could see as possibly new information is the the stated requirement for a basic level of talent, but that seemed to be more of a basic assumption with the way it was phrased that was just being explicitly mentioned, rather than an inference that was being made.

Even if that does qualify as an inference, I was also confused by the way E says the inferences are regarding "the explanatory and predictive roles of possible factors."

I'd super appreciate any insight! This was one of the answers I was super certain of, so I was surprised by the incorrect answer and don't quite understand. Thank you in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

I'll reiterate Eric's explanation for what kills answer C, snowy, and caution you against reading too much into the passage or the answer choices. There is no advocacy - not even a subtle suggestion - anywhere in the passage for any future research. This passage is entirely about reviewing past research and drawing conclusions based upon that research.

As always, we need to prephrase whenever we can, and we certainly can do so when we are asked about the purpose of a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph in the passage. Why did the author include this bit of information? What was it intended to convey, and how did it add to the overall content and purpose of the passage?

The purpose of the last paragraph is to summarize how the recent research does not support the claim made early in the passage that innate talent must play a role, and to suggest that instead the real drivers of outstanding performance are intensive training and, before that, great interest. Great interest both explains and predicts intensive training, and intensive training both explains and predicts outstanding performance.

I'll confess that I didn't totally understand answer E at first, but the other answers were all clear losers - there was no proposal (answer A), no conflict (answer B), no advocacy (answer C), and no objection to the author's view (answer D). It was just about summing up the real factors - training and interest. Answer E has no obvious, glaring problem, so it's the only one worth keeping. That's good enough for me, given the instructions, and it needs to be good enough for anyone taking the test, too!