DISCUSSION: The passage is nuanced. Research suggests that motivation is more likely to be important than innate talent. (lines 62-64)
The author does not say that innate talent is useless. For instance, lines 41-45 show that superior innate capacities can help chess players, but chess players can overcome these limits with training.
And lines 55-56 show that you need some talent to succeed. The author’s point is merely that it’s not as important as we think.
- The passage said many traits, such as perception, are not inborn. They can be altered by training. The passage did not say that inborn traits (such as height) can be altered by training.
- The author didn’t say that anyone can achieve exceptional levels of performance. Exceptional performance is, by definition, rare. You don’t need innate talent for exceptional performance, but there may be other necessary conditions.
- This goes too far. Lines 41-45 show that superior traits can be useful. Chess players can circumvent innate limits with training, but not having innate skill is still somewhat of a disadvantage.
- CORRECT. This is the best summary of the passage. It is appropriately nuanced. The author did not say that their argument is conclusively correct. Lines 62-64 just say that superior performance is “more likely” due to motivation than innate talent.
- This isn’t necessarily true. The psychologists are only mentioned in the first paragraph. The author has presented good evidence that the psychologists are wrong. But that doesn’t mean the psychologists will change their beliefs: people often hold onto wrong beliefs.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions