I would answer whether it is genetic as a maybe, but not 100% likely.
Remember that they've been removing a lot of math from IQ tests because the makers of the tests believed that those answers required education, not
natural ability. For this to be a genetic/inborn, then those same questions would need to be put back in because this may prove the precaution
Kids in the USA are not really taught basic math until after the age of 5, but many are taught to count before then (not all). Most children who are
taught/surrounded by multiple languages before they are 5 tend to have higher scores in linguistics before formal education, as well. So what you are
surrounded with from birth can have a huge impact.
I was exposed to the concept that humans have no problem automatically seeing groups up to as large as 5 without having to count at all, I think in
late high school or early college. I found that I could see a group of 6 without counting, occasionally, if I could see 2 groups of 3. All sorts of
theories were running around about, including the thought that you can only see what you have (i.e., the number of fingers you have influences how big
a number you can see without counting).
I think a better application of this new study would be to see how the inborn ability can be tweaked without genetic manipulation because if we can do
that, there would be no need to have special ed math classes for those who are against genetic manipulation, or even an ethical argument at all.
Which is the way they are going with it, anyway:
"Thus, a link between the two is surprising and raises many important questions and issues, including one of the most important ones, which is
whether we can train a child's number sense with an eye to improving his future math ability."
At the same time, from personal experience, I can tell you that you don't have to have any ability to understand logic or have any formal training to
practice geometry-related building tasks. Know a "master carpenter" who can't grasp the concept that Thomas Jefferson would rebel against his
country, let alone basic logic exercises, yet can build sheds and doors without having to fight with the numbers all day long. I personally can build
things by eyeball (craftwork), although I wouldn't build a house by eye, just because I do have just enough logic skills to fear the results. Neither
of these things is a gift my father has, and he's got higher innate math and logic skills than I or this other person have. (The only thing he ever
made because he "saw" it before he made it was a walking cane. He is surprisingly in awe of that kind of talent.)
And for the test, I took the 10 minute version, which they suggested. My results were a .15 w, with the 90th percentile scoring a .10, and the 10th
percentile performing at: .32, which puts me roughly at a little above the 70th--and they noted that if you do it too fast (which I did, as is typical
of me), you're going to score lower than you should. Also, I wound up having to scroll down to see part of the image each time, before the image was
removed from the screen, and I know that messed up some of my score. So, yeah, there is some things that could throw you if you intend to take the
test for yourself.