Reading comp PrepTest 140 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. (Lines 39-40) If we say that the revised theoretical model is training and the old one is innate talent, we can see that this answer doesn't describe the passage. That would require the passage to look at cases where people were exceptionally talented despite lacking innate talent—something the argument doesn't do. In fact, it brings up the rare cases where people are talented despite a lack of training so, if anything, this answer flips things around.

Incorrect. (Line 23) The passage brings up "[r]ecent research," so it's not basing its argument on the same evidence as was used for the old theory.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Abstract away from the main point to reflect on the purpose of the passage

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
These questions asking about the Author's primary purpose are strongly related to main point questions—after all, the primary purpose of any passage is to prove the main point.

Here, the main point was that research shows it's intense training and not innate talent that explains exceptional performance. We framed our understanding of the passage around a common structure—the Phenomenon/Explanation passage. And, specifically, this passage was about supplanting an old theory with a new one. The correct answer here should reflect that—let's find one that says something about using research to argue against an old explanation/theory and for a new one.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 19-21; Lines 23-27; Lines 36-39; Lines 51-57) The passage repeatedly notes that recent research shows exceptional performance, in the vast majority of cases, is explained by intense training rather than innate talent. In other words, recent research on exceptional performers provides evidence that the view innate talent explains exceptional performance based on earlier research on the general public isn't applicable to the vast majority of cases of people with exceptional talent. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Questions asking about the Author's primary purpose all have the same generic answer—to prove the main point. Start with that main point, and then abstract away from it, relying on common argument/passage structures when possible.

Incorrect. (Line 23) The Author is bringing in new research, not reinterpreting old data. She also doesn't identify any probable objections against this new interpretation.

Incorrect. (Lines 17-18) The passage notes that the old theory was based on "little systematic research," and there's no different-yet-related field of inquiry—all of the relevant information in the stimulus is about the explanation for superior performance.