Self-study
P1
In certain fields of human endeavor, such as music, chess, and some athletic activities, the performance of the best practitioners is so outstanding, so superior even to the performance of other highly experienced individuals in the field, that some people believe some notion of innate talent must be invoked to account for this highest level of performance. ███
Phenomenon / OP Hypothesis ·
Exceptional performance explained by innate talent
Evidence for OP Hypothesis ·
Heritability of traits; inborn traits like motor coordination, reflex speed, etc.
P2
█████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███
Critique ·
Not much systematic research
Existing estimates of heritability based on general population, not exceptional performers.
Alternative Hypothesis ·
Exceptional performance explained by acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations
Evidence for Alternative Hypothesis ·
Exceptional performance is localized to the particular domain
For example, Michael Jordan's adventures in baseball. Chess players have exceptional memories but only for typical configurations of chess pieces.
P3
███ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██████ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █ ████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████████████ █████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ █████████
Evidence ·
Supporting acquired trait hypothesis and countering innate ability hypothesis
Most exceptional adults were not exceptional children; they trained early; skills like memory and ability to process information acquired; most traits (e.g. aerobic capacity and percentage of muscle fibers) can be altered by training.
P4
███ ████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███████████ ███
Conclusion ·
Evidence does not support innate ability hypothesis
Because extended intense training along with a common level of talent can explain the difference in performance.
Implications ·
Motivation as better predictor of superior performance
Because sustained training depends on level of interest, hence motivational factors are better predictors of superior performance than innate talent.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
15.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
a
It makes proposals ███ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████
There is no “proposal for educational reform” in the last paragraph. Since (A) doesn’t occur, it can’t be the purpose of the last paragraph.
b
It demonstrates that ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████████
The author does not suggest anything is “at odds” (conflicting) in the last paragraph. There’s no evidence that any aspect of the findings conflicts with another part of the findings. Since (B) doesn’t happen, it can’t be the purpose.
c
It recapitulates the ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ███ █████████ █ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████
The author does not “recapitulate” (re-summarize) evidence in the last paragraph. Also, the author does not “advocate” a direction for future research. She raises considerations that suggest new directions, but the author doesn’t tell anyone to do more research. So (C) misdescribes the view that the author presents evidence against.
d
It raises and ███████ █ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████
The last paragraph does not raise a possible “objection” to the view that intense training, coupled with some level of talent, can account for exceptional performance.
e
It draws two ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████████
This is the best answer (because it’s the only one that, at a minimum, states something that actually happens in the last paragraph). The first inference is that extended intense training, together with some level of talent, might be enough to explain the different between exceptional performance and regular performance. This is the inference about the “explanatory” role of factors in superior performance — it relates to the explanation for exceptional talent. The next inference is that motivational factors may be a better way to predict superior performance than is innate talent. This is the inference regarding the “predictive” role of factors in the development of superior performance.