[David Sklansky]

People bend over backwards to dispute my contention that those who believe that silly religious stories actually make objective sense, or that those who are weak in mathematical reasoning, are not apt to be as as good a president as the best of those who don't have these attributes.

I think part of their disagreement is a reflexive desire to avoid some sort of prejudice or elitism.

To avoid this knee jerk response, I'll change the question.
Anybody who learns how to play chess and has a few hundred games under their belt should be able to solve just about any three move checkmate puzzle in a reasonable amount of time. You don't have to be a master or anywhere close to it. But some people who have fully understand the rules of chess and play it regularly still struggle with these puzzles.

Obviously no presidential candidate is going to learn chess, play it awhile, and then submit to testing. But if we assumed they did, isn't it clear that those candidates who had the greatest difficulty with these forced checkmate problems, to the point of not being able to do many of them, almost automatically disqualify themselves from being as good a president as those who can do these problems and are otherwise qualified?