Does it strike you as weird that we’re going to do a lesson on grammar?  This is the LSAT after all.  It’s a test that assumes some college level education and here I am trying to teach you grammar, which is something I would hope we all learned in grade school.

But, as it turns out, the reason – I’m willing to say the reason – people have such a hard time with the LSAT is because of its grammar.

When you read a sentence on the LSAT, be it a Logical Reasoning question or Reading Comprehension passage, and you say to yourself, “What the hell did I just read? What were those words that I just saw all next to each other?” it’s because you’re not very good at deconstructing difficult grammar.

With easy grammar, it’s an unconscious thing where you follow the rules to parse out the different pieces of a sentence and you know how each piece relates to the others.  With difficult grammar, that doesn't happen.  On the LSAT, there are a lot of sentences with difficult grammar.  That is why knowing your grammar is so important.  It’s the rules of our English language.  It’s how you put pieces together.  How you make sense of them.  What the relationships are between them.

In this curriculum on grammar, we’re going to learn three things.  If you can remember these three things and get into the habit of doing these three things, then you’ll be fine.  Then the hard sentences, the sentences that initially seemed impenetrable, they will become clear to you. These are the three things: subject, predicate, details (sometimes also called "modifiers" and "embedded clauses"). Train your brain to always focus on these three things and you'll be fine.

Let’s look at an example.

Candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms.

Not a very hard sentence to understand. I bet everyone reading this sentence has already unconsciously processed those three things: subject, predicate, details.  But, let’s take it step by step and use this easy sentence to illustrate some potentially difficult concepts.

The subject.

What is the subject?  The subject is the thing which the sentence is about.  It’s the center around which everything else turns.  So, if I ask you, “What is this sentence about?” you would tell me that this sentence is about “candidates.”   You’d be right.  This sentence is about candidates.  What does this sentence want to tell us about candidates?  To answer that question, we need to look at the predicate.

The predicate.

What is the predicate?  It’s almost always a verb.  It tells you something about the subject.  Here, we know that the subject is "candidates."  What about the candidate?  Well, they "have" something.  They "have" an "advantage."

I skipped over a lot of the other words in the sentence.  It's important not to get distracted by those words.  First, you have to figure out what the subject and what the predicate are.  All the other words are just details.  It doesn't mean they're not important.  They are very, very important.  It just means that they have a tendency to distract you from understanding the basic structure of the sentence.  So, save the details for last.

The details.

Sometimes the details are contained in "modifiers" like adjectives or adverbs and sometimes they are contained in "embedded clauses."

“Unfair” for example, is a detail.  It modifies "advantage" by telling us what kind of “advantage.”  Okay, “unfair advantage.”  But, in what?  An eating competition?  Nope.  More details: "in publicizing their platforms."

What about “who can vastly outspend all rivals?”  It’s also detail.  Are we talking about the entire universe of all candidates in this sentence?  No.  We’re not.  We’re only talking about a sub-set of all candidates.  What sub-set?  The ones who can vastly outspend all rivals.  So it’s an embedded clause that’s modifying and giving us more details for “candidates.”

So, you can read this sentence in the bare bones form with just the subject and predicate: “Candidates have an advantage.”  Then, you can read it again and fill in all the details: “Candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms.”

With an easy sentence like this, you’re subconsciously doing the parsing out of the grammar.  What’s the subject, what’s the predicate, what are the details?  But, when it comes to harder sentences – like the ones in the quizzes that follow and the ones on the LSAT – your sub-conscious might fail you.  You might have to bring this out to the surface and train your brain to be really good at actively doing this.

Note: For question 4, the video says "are" (the incorrect one) and the question above the video says "is" (the correct one).

We're going to learn what "referential phrases" are, what role they play, and how to identify them. This lesson is relevant across the LSAT, but is particularly relevant for Reading Comprehension. LSAT writers often use referential phrases to lose you. Like, you're reading and reading and reading and then... wait, what was I just reading? Bam! You got hit by a referential phrase, son.

Okay, so it's not exactly like that. But for sure sometimes, when you are lost in an LSAT passage, it's because you failed to actively keep track of referential phrases.

If you can cultivate a habit of always identifying referential phrases, you'll become a better reader and you won't get lost as much.

Let's get acquainted with a referential phrase with this example.

Tom went to the store and he bought milk.

The referential phrase in the above sentence is "he." Who's "he"? Well, Tom, of course. "He" is just a stand-in for "Tom." That's referential phrasing in its simplest form. It simply stands in place of something else. That something else could have appeared earlier in the text or it could appear later on.

Absent the referent or the thing that the referential phrase is pointing to ("Tom"), the referential phrase ("he") actually doesn't mean much. It's just a pointer. It needs something to point to.

So, how do we identify referential phrases? That's actually the easy part. We're already intuitively good at this. You do it subconsciously all the time. You couldn't be a functional, literate college student otherwise. It's simply a matter of noticing when the LSAT uses it on you. If you notice, you'll likely be fine.

The most common referential phrases on the LSAT are pronouns like "its," "that," "this," or "their," but that's not anywhere close to an exhaustive list. It's not a good idea to try to memorize these words. Instead, try to understand what role they're playing and identify them that way.

We'll look at some actual examples from the LSAT in the next lesson.

Below are sentences pulled from actual LSATs.  With these examples we can illustrate what "referential phrases" are.

Example #1, easy

Most authoritarian rulers who undertake democratic reforms do so not out of any intrinsic commitment or conversion to democratic ideals, but rather because they foresee or recognize that certain changes and mobilizations in civil society make it impossible for them to hold on indefinitely to absolute power.

Example #2, easy

As one scholar notes, an important turning point in the transition to democracy comes when privileged people in society - landowners, industrialists, merchants, bankers - who had been part of a regime's support base come to the conclusion that the authoritarian regime is dispensable and that its continuation might damage their long-term interests.

The role that referential phrases play in our language is to make communication of information faster. The trade off, the price we pay for speed, is density of information. Denser requires a more attentive participant in the communication. (If you don't pay attention, you get lost.) If we didn't have referential phrases, sentences would just be longer. Every time you wanted to say, "privileged people in society - landowners, industrialists, merchants, bankers," you would have to say exactly that. Notice how I just used "referential phrasing" to avoid it? I just did it again. Okay, sorry, I'll stop.

Example #3, not so easy

The term "blues" is conventionally used to refer to a state of sadness or melancholy, but to conclude from this that the musical genre of the same name is merely an expression of unrelieved sorrow is to miss its deeper meaning.  Despite its frequent focus on such themes as suffering and self-pity, and despite the censure that it has sometimes received from church communities, the blues, understood more fully, actually has much in common with the traditional religious music known as spirituals.

In this example, we see a very common form of referential phrasing being employed in the use of "this." "This" is referring to an entire statement of fact: that the term "blues" is conventionally used to refer to a state of sadness or melancholy. See how much more economical communication is with the use of referential phrasing? But, you have to pay attention and actively push that referential phrase back to its referent.

Example #4, not so easy

Critics have noted that African American folk tradition, in its earliest manifestations, does not sharply differentiate reality into sacred and secular strains or into irreconcilable dichotomies between good and evil, misery and joy.  This is consistent with the apparently dual aspect of the blues and spirituals.

"This" refers to an entire statement of fact: African American folk tradition, in its earliest manifestations, does not sharply differentiate reality into sacred and secular strains or into irreconcilable dichotomies between good and evil, misery and joy.

If you don't point the referential phrase back to its referent, then you run the risk of not knowing what the subject of the second sentence is. "This" is empty of meaning unless you point it back to what it's referring to. This kind of referential phrasing is harder to follow and loses people faster. As we carry on with our lessons and you encounter more and more LSAT language, you'll see that there are many ways to use referential phrasing.

Comparative statements are kind of tricky. We'll start with some easy ones but the tough ones get really tough.

Generally, there's a 4 step process to figuring out comparative statements.

Step 1. Not every sentence expresses a comparison, so first we have to know that we're in comparison territory. Usually, our clue is the word "than." It sets up the comparison.
Step 2. Once we know we're dealing with a comparative statement, we should identify the two things that are being compared with each other. Thing 1 and thing 2, e.g., Apples and Oranges. Typically, this step will be difficult because of the heavy use of "referential phrases" and "modifiers" / "details."
Step 3. Now that we know we're talking about Apples and Oranges, what's the quality or feature of the comparison? Is one bigger? Sweeter? More effective as a projectile weapon? This step may be difficult because of the use of "details."
Step 4. Finally, we have to declare a winner. Which of the two things win? That is to say, which of the two things have more of the quality or feature? Apples are better than oranges as a projectile. Oranges are sweeter than apples.

The next lesson in this class will take you through examples of comparative sentences so we can learn to apply this 4-step method.

Example #1, easy

Blackbirds build better nests than other birds.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: "blackbirds"
Thing 2: "other birds"  Here, "other" is pointing to "blackbirds" and saying not "blackbirds."

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Build better nests.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: "blackbirds"

Example #2, easy

There is a greater worldwide shortage of research scientists than there is of engineers.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: "research scientists"
Thing 2: "engineers"

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Greater worldwide shortage.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: "research scientists"

Example #3, easy

During the ice age, more of the Earth's precipitation falls over land than falls over the ocean.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: "precipitation falling over land"
Thing 2: "precipitation falling over ocean"

Note that "Earth's precipitation" is used twice.

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

More of it.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: "precipitation falling over land"

Example #4, easy

They found that the kittens from Arnold's shelter salivated significantly more when their lunch smelled of seafood than otherwise.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: "when their lunch smelled of seafood"
Thing 2: "than otherwise"  Here, "otherwise" is referencing "smelled of seafood" and saying not "smelled of seafood."

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Kittens salivate more in response to one of these things than the other.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: "when their lunch smelled of seafood"

Okay, not bad - let's take a look at another example.

Example #5, easy

A typical gasoline powered car consumes 3 times more resources and produces 15 to 20 times more air pollution than a typical electric car.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: typical gasoline car
Thing 2: typical electric car

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Consumes more resources and produces more air pollution.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: typical gasoline car.  Not only that, but we can say with precision by how much it "wins." Consumes 3 times more resources and produces 20 times more air pollution.

Notice in this example, the absence of referential phrasing and embedded clauses made the comparative statement easier to understand.

Example #1, easy

Potatoes produced from synthetic genes tend to be more resistant to disease than are potatoes produced from natural genes.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: potatoes from synthetic genes
Thing 2: potatoes from natural genes

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Being more resistant to disease.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: potatoes from synthetic genes

Notice in this example, the absence of referential phrasing and embedded clauses made the comparative statement easier to understand.

Example #2, easy

Pups born to wild dogs tend to be more aggressive than are pups born to dogs bred for hunting.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: pups born to wild dogs
Thing 2: pups born to hunting dogs

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Tendency toward aggression.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: pups born to wild dogs

Notice in this example, the absence of referential phrasing and embedded clauses made the comparative statement easier to understand.

Example #3, not so easy

The terms and definitions in the United Nations documents are frequently interpreted more narrowly than are similar terms and definitions in many national asylum laws.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: terms and definitions in the UN documents
Thing 2: terms and definitions in national asylum laws

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

Being interpreted more narrowly

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: terms and definitions in the UN documents

I know this was over kill for a lot of you.  But, that's because they are easy and you're doing the comparisons subconsciously.  The point was to get you to see the rules that you're subconsciously following and bring them out to the surface.  This way, when you encounter something difficult, you'll be able to consciously apply the same rules.

Example #4, not as easy

A study of 527 aeronautical engineers shows that those who eat lunch at their desks are more likely to be seen by their managers as hardworking, dedicated, and concerned than are those who do not.

Step 1. Spot the "than"

Step 2. Identify the two things

Thing 1: Engineers who eat lunch at their desks. Notice the use of an embedded clause - we're not talking about all engineers, just the aeronautical ones and the ones who eat lunch at their desks.
Thing 2: Engineers who do not eat lunch at their desks. Notice the use of a referential phrases "those who do not" is referencing engineers ("those") who eat lunch at their desks ("do") in a negative way ("not").

Step 3. Identify the quality or feature of comparison

More likely to be seen by their managers as hardworking, dedicated, and concerned.

Step 4. Identify the winner

Thing 1: Engineers who eat lunch at their desks.

In this example, we see how the embedded clauses and referential phrasing makes the sentence more difficult to comprehend.  You can imagine they can make these embedded clauses even more convoluted.  Hopefully, you're seeing how these grammar lessons are coming together to give you clarity.