Question

A study of professional chess players revealed that those who began formal coaching before the age of 10 were far more likely to become grandmasters than those who began coaching at an older age or not at all. Researchers concluded that early coaching significantly increases the likelihood of attaining elite status in chess. However, this conclusion is not entirely correct. Early achievers are typically individuals who show exceptional interest and aptitude for chess from a young age. It is this early talent and motivation-not the timing of coaching-that primarily accounts for their success. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the objection to the researchers' conclusion?

• A. Players who began formal coaching after age 10 but practiced intensely often matched the performance of early-trained players in national tournaments.
• B. Players who started coaching early tended to practice for more hours each week than those who started later.
• C. Parents are much more likely to seek out formal chess coaching for their children if they observe early signs of exceptional aptitude in the game.
• D. Many grandmasters who began early coaching also had access to high-quality instructors and resources.
• E. Players who did not receive coaching but started playing young rarely became grandmasters.

Hint:

In cause-and-effect arguments, watch out for correlation-causation fallacies. To strengthen an objection that points out this flaw, look for an answer choice that suggests an alternative cause, or shows that the cause-and-effect relationship might be reversed.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept
This is a Strengthen question. We need to find the answer choice that provides the best evidence for the objector's argument. The core of the dispute is about cause and effect.

Researchers' Conclusion (Cause \(\rightarrow\) Effect): Early Coaching \(\rightarrow\) Success.
Objector's Argument (Alternate Cause): Early Talent/Aptitude \(\rightarrow\) Success. The objector also implies that Early Talent \(\rightarrow\) Early Coaching, making "Early Coaching" a byproduct of talent, not the cause of success.
We need to strengthen the objector's claim that early aptitude is the real cause.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation
The best way to strengthen the objector's argument is to show a causal link between early talent and early coaching. If talented kids are the ones who get coaching, it supports the idea that talent is the primary factor.

(A) This weakens the researchers' claim but doesn't directly support the objector's specific reason (early aptitude). It introduces a third factor: practice intensity.
(B) This suggests that early coaching leads to more practice. This might actually strengthen the researchers' side by providing a mechanism through which early coaching leads to success (via more practice).
(C) This provides a direct causal link that supports the objector. It shows that the direction of cause and effect is not (Coaching \(\rightarrow\) Talent/Success), but rather (Observed Talent \(\rightarrow\) Decision to get Coaching). This perfectly explains why early coaching and success are correlated, without coaching being the cause.
(D) This introduces another factor (quality of instructors), which confuses the issue rather than strengthening the specific objection about early aptitude.
(E) This seems to weaken the objector's argument by suggesting that early playing without coaching is not enough, which might imply coaching is indeed necessary.
Step 3: Final Answer
Option (C) provides the strongest evidence for the objector's argument by explaining the observed correlation as a case of reverse causality: the talent leads to the coaching, not the other way around.