In the first paragraph, the author outlines the view that the best practitioners' performance in certain fields (e.g. music, chess, and some athletic activities) must have some level of innate talent. This view is supported by psychological data which notes the early appearance of relevant traits in musicians and some athletes.
In the second paragraph, the author tells us that, until recently, little systematic research was done in this area. This recent research has suggested that these practitioners' performative abilities arise from acquired skills and physiological adaptations as opposed to innate talent.
In the third paragraph, the author highlights research which has shown that a large number of characteristics required for success in chess and certain athletic pursuits arise from extended training as opposed to innate abilities.
Finally, the author concludes that the evidence does not support the view outlined in the first paragraph that some level of innate talent is necessary for exceptional performance. This is because recent research has shown that extended training in conjunction with the level of talent held by all reasonably competent performers may help account for these differences in performance.
Answer choice (C) is a stronger answer choice than answer choice (B) because of the different examples used throughout the passage. The "innate talent theory" may still be supported for musicians as the author notes in the first paragraph that psychologists have found that most outstanding musicians are discovered by the age of six.
The author does not apply the new research to musicians; rather, for the remainder of the passage, they focus on chess players and athletes. In this way, the recent research suggests that the "innate talent theory" does not apply to these classes of cases.
Additionally, answer choice (B) is incorrect because it suggests that the original evidence supporting the "innate talent theory" actually supports a different theory. The "innate talent theory" was not discredited because of the evidence outlined in the first paragraph; rather, the change in the author's views can be attributed to recent systematic research exploring superior performers as opposed to the original research which only used random samples of the population.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
