People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and

Question

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and practice. There is not an activity in the world for which someone who has practiced for over 10,000 hours is not a master.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually.

(B) It assumes that the number of hours required to achieve mastery is the same for all activities.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel.

(D) It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author.

(E) It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.

haardiksharma · Answer

How to eliminate B and D here 
its a weird question 
what should be approach while solving such questions

Chets25 · Answer

C..since the argument assumes that if people spend significant time on any activity they can master it. However C provides a reason against it stating that people spend more time on activity which they have already mastered/excel or in activities they feel they will excel

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and practice. \ There is not an activity in the world for which someone who has practiced for over 10,000 hours is not a master.
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

A It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually.
B It assumes that the number of hours required to achieve mastery is the same for all activities.
C It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel.
D It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author.
E It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo C 
The argument talks about motivation and other things to achieve mastery .
It is also mentioned in the passage that to require mastery more than 10000 hours are needed.
But if some one is not interested in some activity then he is not going to attain mastery .
So the auther is considering people who are interested in activity they are doing

Sent from my ONE E1003 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Leo8 · Answer

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and practice. 
There is not an activity in the world for which someone who has practiced for   over 10,000 hours   is not a master.
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

A It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually.  This can not be true in all the cases. Sometimes generalisation is true for all.. But that's not what author is doing here.

B It assumes that  the number of hours  required to achieve mastery  is the same for all activities.  : we are not given fixed number of hours. Argument just says that  "for over 10,000 hours"  number of hours to excel can be any number greater than 10,000

C It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel.

D It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author.  This only attacks the personality of the author, we do not know if the author was experienced or not? Can we tell for sure.

E It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.  No there is not even one data point mentioned in the argument. Argument gives a general pattern of practising greater than 10,000 hours.

4SL · Answer

hello arvind 
if you could please carify my doubt, it would be a great help
As per question stem if you spend 10000hrs in any activity you will be able to master it
option C says if you are excelling in any activity then only you will give time to it.
but option E says that there are variables other than time which contribute to excellence such as interest and level of difficulty etc...
is it the question about any activity which i am going to start/which i hv no particular experince - then my excellence in that activity will be dependant on amont of time spend along with interest??
according to me answer should be E

4SL · Answer

if you could please carify my doubt, it would be a great help
As per question stem if you spend 10000hrs in any activity you will be able to master it
option C says if you are excelling in any activity then only you will give time to it.
but option E says that there are variables other than time which contribute to excellence such as interest and level of difficulty etc...
is it the question about any activity which i am going to start/which i hv no particular experince - then my excellence in that activity will be dependant on amont of time spend along with interest??
according to me answer should be E

akshayk · Answer

Author's experience is not really in question in the argument, so we can rule it out. So 'D' is Out.
And I can see how B has been ruled out as well, as B only address the second clause in the argument i.e. Number of hours = mastery, but it contains nothing to address the author's first clause i.e. people achieve great things through motivation, dedication, etc.

C on the other hand tackles both the clauses by stating that people only invest significant time in activities in which they already excel. This breaks down the argument as it attacks the basic premise that motivation, hard work, and number of hours spent on the activity can lead to great achievements.

Hope this helps.

Skywalker18 · Answer

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and practice. \ There is not an activity in the world for which someone who has practiced for over 10,000 hours is not a master.
Type – weaken
Boil it down – With dedicated practice of over 10,000 hours , one can be a master in any activity

A It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually. - Irrelevant
B It assumes that the number of hours required to achieve mastery is the same for all activities. – Incorrect – the argument does not give us definite number , but mentions over 1000 hours
C It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel. – Correct – This reverses the causality as people invest time only in things that they are good at to begin with
D It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author. – Incorrect
E It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.- ISWAT- This is similar to saying that multiple causes are responsible for an effect , but that one cause is still valid here 
Answer C

harshdeep12 · Answer

chetan2u  : Dear Expert- Can you please explain why option E is wrong? I chose Option E over C. The reason was that I felt that in the last statement while the author does mention about the hours required to make someone's practice successful, he does not mention anything about the other aspects involved that include motivation and dedication. What if someone practices for 10000 hours, but is not motivated and dedicated. Please explain. So I felt that the author was drawing conclusion from only one data point. Thanks

chetan2u · Answer

Hi..

Firstly let's check the statements..
People can achieve........ - conclusion 
There is not .......... - premise

Now if you look at choice A. It tells us that a broad conclusion is made without giving details of each activity.
If you didn't have any other choice weakening, you may consider this too as a choice..

But we are looking for MOST vulnerable, so you have to look at other choices too.
And choice C here clearly stands out. It attacks the premise itself thus weakening the argument

E too talks of conclusion not taking other data points. Somewhat similar to A. Both A and E do not weaken the argument, they just ask for more info. 
So in the given choices C clearly holds on to the MOST tag.

sagarraj1986 · Answer

What is the source of this question? In my opinion, the question seems a bit quirky. 
The first statement...people can achieve ...can very well stand as premise
and the second statement...there is not...can very well stand as conclusion.

C says that the author does not consider some xyz possibility. Well the author does not need to consider any such thing. He or she simply states that if you spend time on something, you master it. It does not matter to the argument whether you only spend time on an activity if you already like it.

So source remains quirky. What is it?

Masterscorp · Answer

Source is VeritasPrep. The argument is most vulnerable to C because people might only become a master in an activity if they are talented already and hence become world class by spending a lot of time practicing. So it can't be generalized that anyone can become a master in any activity in a matter of 10,000 hours. Does that make sense?

sagarraj1986 · Answer

Thanks for letting know the source

I guess we should not be attacking the premise, but rather attack the conclusion. Its the author's premise that people can achieve great things....through x, y, z... . Typically in such questions, we assume the premise to be true, and unblemished by real world considerations. What we can attack then, is the conclusion that the author draws based on the premise. So in this question, the author draws a conclusion that lot of time invested in practice makes one a master; the conclusion is conditionally supported by the premise. In that sense E) is a close answer. C) claims the author does not consider some other possibilities- but in my opinion this would be out of scope. Hope that makes sense.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

This argument makes a classic mistake related to correlation vs. causation. The author draws the conclusion ("people can achieve great things...") from the fact that people who have participated in an activity for 10,000 hours are always masters of that activity. But is the 10,000 hours of participation necessarily the cause of mastery? Or could it be the effect - only people who are very good at an activity will enjoy it enough to keep doing it for such a long period of time! Answer choice C hits that point directly: it could be that the duration of time is the cause of the mastery, but it could also be true that only masters stick with an activity that long.

AldrinAntonyPJ · Answer

It seems to me as if B is the most strongest answer here ,please help me out here...

**(A) It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually.**

This choice criticizes the argument for generalizing across all activities without considering that some activities might differ in terms of what's needed to achieve mastery. While this is a valid point, the main problem with the argument is the assumption that **10,000 hours is always enough** to become a master, rather than failing to address individual activities specifically. So, while (A) is close, it's not the strongest criticism.

---

**(B) It assumes that the number of hours required to achieve mastery is the same for all activities.**

This is the correct criticism. The argument assumes that **exactly 10,000 hours** is enough to master any activity, regardless of what that activity is or the individual's unique circumstances. The flaw is that not all activities may require the same time investment, and different people may need more or fewer hours depending on their natural abilities and the complexity of the task.

---

**(C) It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel.**

This criticism suggests that people might only spend time on activities they are already good at, so 10,000 hours could be more a reflection of natural talent rather than the amount of practice required. While interesting, this doesn't directly address the core issue of whether 10,000 hours is universally sufficient for mastery, which is why it's not the strongest objection.

---

**(D) It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author.**

This suggests the argument is based on a narrow personal experience, which could be flawed. However, the argument doesn't present itself as purely personal experience—it’s making a broad claim about mastery. So, while this could be a valid criticism in some contexts, it's not the key issue with the argument here.

---

**(E) It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.**

This answer criticizes the argument for being based on limited evidence. However, the argument doesn't rely on one data point; it's a general statement. The flaw isn't in the data but in the assumption that **10,000 hours is always enough** for mastery across all activities, so this criticism doesn’t directly apply.

---

So, the strongest criticism is **(B)** because it directly challenges the assumption that the same number of hours (10,000) is sufficient for mastering every possible activity. Please tell me why B is not the right answer...

Adit_ · Answer

Even if people don't invest significant time in something they dont excel, how does it ruin the argument? It only says there is "no activity" where somebody who has trained for so long is not a master. If somebody does not spent time on an activities they don't excel, they could certaintly spend time in an activity in which they CAN excel right? 
Is the inherent assumption that nobody in the world is going to excel at anything? In that case I see why option C could be right.

On the other hand I could make a case for  option E . 
Now the question here would be what is considered as a data point here?
A data point could means taking one example, or a data point could also mean an attribute in question, like being a master.
If I took being a master as the only data point to consider that people can achieve "great things" that could fall apart as there could be many more that go into "greatness" and not just being a master in this case.
Yes as one has pointed out, I do understand that it only begs for more info, but what if "greatness" requires there being all those combined? And stating only one as a supposed evidence for something to occur for sure, is vulnerable to criticism from option E right?

I am having a hard time with this problem, kindly help me out.  Bunuel

guddo · Answer

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and practice. There is not an activity in the world for which someone who has practiced for over 10,000 hours is not a master. 
 
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

The argument suggests that long practice leads to mastery.  The key weakness  is that it ignores a possible selection effect: people may practice an activity for 10,000+ hours because they are already good at it or naturally suited to it. In that case, practice alone may not be the real explanation for mastery.

(A) It draws a broad conclusion about all activities without addressing each activity individually.

This is too general. The problem is not merely that the conclusion is broad, but that the argument ignores why people may spend so much time practicing in the first place.

(B) It assumes that the number of hours required to achieve mastery is the same for all activities.

This is tempting, but not the best criticism. The argument’s deeper flaw is not just the exact number of hours. The flaw is that it treats long practice as the cause of mastery without considering that people may choose to keep practicing activities in which they already excel.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that people only invest significant time in activities in which they excel.

This is correct. If people tend to practice for 10,000+ hours only when they already have talent or early success in that activity, then the argument cannot show that practice alone produces mastery. The relationship may be driven by  preexisting ability , not just practice.

(D) It generalizes its conclusion from the limited experience of the author.

This is unsupported. The argument gives no information about the author’s personal experience.

(E) It draws a conclusion from one data point without considering the existence of other data points.

This is unsupported. The argument does not mention one specific data point.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi Adit_,

Your instinct actually walks you straight into why  C  works; let's connect the dots.

The argument's hidden claim is  causal : that putting in  10,000  hours is what  produces  mastery. So the author is really saying "practice → master."

Now look at your own line: people "could certainly spend time in an activity in which they CAN excel." That  is  choice  C . If the only people who ever log  10,000  hours are the ones already good enough at the activity to stick with it that long, then what we're seeing isn't "practice made them masters" - it's "masters-to-be are the only ones who practice that much." The talent came first and explains  both  the long practice  and  the mastery.

That's the damage: the author looks at a group of  10,000 -hour people, sees they're all masters, and concludes practice did it. But that group is  self-selected  - it quietly filters out everyone who tried an activity they had no knack for and quit early. So the data can't show practice causes mastery.  C  points at exactly that overlooked possibility, which is why it's the strongest hit.

On your case for E:  two problems.

- Factually, the stimulus gives  no single example  to generalize from - it states a general pattern, not one anecdote. So "one data point" has nothing to attach to.
- Even on your creative reading (mastery being just one ingredient of "greatness"),  E  only  asks for more information . It says "maybe other factors matter too," but it never breaks the practice → mastery link the author leans on. A choice that merely begs for more info isn't the  most  vulnerable point - and the question asks for that.

A quick stand-in to feel the C move:

"Everyone who owns a yacht is wealthy, so buying a yacht makes you wealthy."

The flaw isn't missing data - it's that only the already-wealthy buy yachts. Wealth causes the yacht, not the reverse. Map that back: only the already-able rack up  10,000  hours. Same reverse-causation trap, and that's what  C  nails.

Answer: C

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

People can achieve great things through motivation, dedication, and

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards