RC Question 16 Explanation
DISCUSSION: You must take LSAT answers literally. If a statements says “talent plays no role” then this means talent has zero impact. That’s a silly idea, and the authors don’t agree. Paragraph 4 shows that some talent is required.
Yet answer E is the most common answer chosen: it says talent plays no role. That’s insane.
___________
- CORRECT. Unusually, there’s no single line I can point to in order to definitively prove this answer. Nonetheless, I believe the passage as a whole clearly supports it.
The entire passage discusses a debate about whether skills are innate or learned. The recent research on the last sentence of paragraph 3 shows that our views of the source of some skills are still changing.
Given our lack of certainty, it’s reasonable that in at least some fields we can’t tell how much extensively talent is innate. - Paragraph 4 contradicts this. You don’t need the highest level of talent to succeed. You just need the level of talent common to reasonably competent performers.
- The passage didn’t say whether any fields actually do require exceptional talent. And the whole point of the argument is that exceptional talent tends not to be required.
- This isn’t supported. Last few lines of paragraph 4 say motivation is required, but the passage doesn’t say what affects motivation.
- This answer directly contradicts the passage. Paragraph 4 say that “that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers” is necessary for exceptional performance. The passage says talent is not as important as we think, but the passage definitely says some talent is necessary.
This is a very bad question that asks you to make a sweeping assumption with no textual support while burying a ‘none’ in the answer logically supported by the text to make it invalid, but still trick people into going for it.
I don’t think your explanation of A makes that much sense because the answer doesn’t talk at all about or infer anything to do with moderate training. Therefore, I’m not sure why you are using that as an example. The answer is about whether we can determine if “a superior performer WITH extensive training” has exceptional innate talent….
I get why it’s right but just don’t think your explanation makes that much sense with the introduction of the moderate practice part.
You’re right, I was referring to the wrong concept. I changed the explanation. Original is below, for reference:
————-
Original explanation for A (now removed)
I had a bit of difficulty choosing this answer. It feels right, but there’s no line in the passage that proves it. Nonetheless, I believe it’s well supported.
Consider an adult chess player. They have exceptional memory and perception. Lines 51-55 show that extensive training + reasonable talent is enough for exceptional skill. But the argument doesn’t rule out exceptional talent + moderate practice as a way to gain skills.
So does this chess player have exceptional innate talent? We don’t know. How would we know? We can see the chess player is skilled. It would be difficult to reconstruct the past and see if these skills were innate or learned.
Another reason that (E) is wrong is that in the final paragraph, the author uses very soft language to express her conclusion. She says that her conclusion about talent being acquired rather than innate “may suffice” as an explanation of the difference between good and great performers.