PrepTest 140

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Head straight to the answers and use what we know about the passage and our notes to find support for the correct answer

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
As with all of these Must Be True questions that lack any guidance, we're at a loss for an Anticipation. The correct answer will generally line up with the overall viewpoint, though they also tend to ask about exceptions when such exceptions show up. Here, there were a few—height can't be trained, some rare cases see superior performers who didn't train—so we need to be on the lookout for that.

However, overall, the passage argued that training explained superior performance more than innate talent, so we should focus on answers that line up with that.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 39-41) The passage notes that only rarely do we see superior performance without intense training—so people out there do have innate talent. However, training or innate, the outcome is the same—superior performance. So if someone with that innate talent trained, they'd end up in the same place. As such, it would be impossible to tell just by looking at the performance whether or not some such people who trained had innate talent, since their performance could just as well have been attributed to that training. This is the correct answer—and note that it lines up with the main point.

Key Takeaway:
Most Must Be True questions in RC have answers that more or less line up with the main point of the passage. Those that don't tend to deal with exceptions, caveats, and concessions made by the Author. Keep both in mind as you work through these answers!

Incorrect. (Lines 54-57) In the concluding paragraph, the Author notes that differences between good and outstanding performance could be attributed to training with "that level of talent common to all reasonably competent performers," so she doesn't believe that the highest level of innate talent is a prerequisite for such superior performance.

Incorrect. (Lines 46-47; Lines 54-57) We just analyzed answer (B), where we eliminated it because we found a line that established exceptional innate talent wasn't required for superior performance. This answer is trying to get you to think of the exception—namely, that height is an innate quality that can't be trained for. However, height isn't a talent, so it doesn't justify this answer.

Incorrect. (Lines 59-62) While the passage notes that it's "more often" the case that people who end up showing exceptional talent show early signs of interest rather than early signs of innate ability, there's no indication that having innate ability breeds complacency—that's a pretty specific causal ("results in") claim that would need to be backed up.

Incorrect. (Lines 55-56) Heading back to the middle of the last paragraph, we can see that the Author attaches a certain level of innate talent to the development of skills through training. This answer, like several in Question #14, is stronger than the passage.