I BUILT THIS SENTENCE, ME, BRICK BY BRICK, AND ILL BE DAMNED IF I LET YOU MODIFY IT JUST CAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY ANOTHER PREDICATE LEAVES INFORMATION TO BE DESIRED
#feedback I had some difficulty with this lesson, gelling all the lessons together. I feel as if a skill builder like "identifying the kernel of a sentence" would be helpful to students so they feel more confident moving forward to the next lesson. Maybe a skill builder where you identify subject, object, predicate, noun, verb, etc. in complex sentences.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. A skill builder for identifying the kernel of a sentence would be useful in further understanding this lesson.
@Sunny CC @chiomavennessa I saw someone in the comments of a past section recommend the book, The Loophole, which I immediately purchased. It has a chapter where there are drills in the end to identify the core or 'kernel' of a sentence. I been using that textbook and 7sage simultaneously -- it's been another helpful tool on top of these lessons re: breaking down complex sentences.
Oh no, my writer brain is always stuck on active voice, aka passive sentences are bad. Here, I assumed archaeologists were the subject since they are the ones doing a thing, aka discovering. “Developments” cannot “do” a thing (“helped” in this case), so I missed all of this.
This really helps with getting rid of jargon in test questions that take up too much brain power. I am bad with focusing on words that don't really hit at the core of the argument so I have blocked them out by just focusing on the "kernel" in the question.
One method I use is that I remove the Predicate, i.e. Verb and object; If the sentence does not make sense, then that's the main verb. For example, in "helped archeologists discover tombs". If you removed "helped archeologists" the sentence falls apart. If you remove "discover tombs", it does not. I hope that helps.
The main verb pertains to the subject of the sentence. Thus, the subject (developments) helped the archaeologists. The developments did not discover anything; rather, the archaeologists did that discovering. If the archaeologists were the main subject of a sentence, then perhaps their discovery could be the main verb, but that is not the case in this example.
As you see J.Y. do in real time. One of the best things you can do when breaking down complex sentence is ask yourself questions as you read the sentence.
Take the following sentence: The National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) (What the heck is this?) representatives (Okay, I see, the main subject is "representatives" but are we talking about all representatives? No. The subject-noun "The National Basketball Players Associations indicate that we are talking about a sub-set of representatives, the ones from the NBPA)(Okay, sounds good. Are we talking about all the representatives of the NBPA? Let's see.) that negotiated (Subject-verb) relentlessly and sought (Subject-verb) legal representation (I see. We are talking about a further subset of representatives, the ones that were relentless in their negotiations and the ones that sought legal representation. Mind you, this could be all of them, but it doesn't have to be.) agreed (Predicate verb)to a appropriate collective bargaining agreement (Predicate noun! Wait, was this agreement good or bad? Well, the word "appropriate" modifies the predicate noun and tells us that it was a good agreement)(is there further information I need to take away from this predicate phrase?) in a record setting time that ultimately led to unprecedent salaries (Yes there is! It set a record and was unprecedent!).
Strip everything away: Representatives agreed to a collective bargaining agreement.
Here is all the modifiers:
Representatives from the NBPA
Also, reps that negotiated and sought legal help.
Agreed to an appropriate agreement.
That was record setting and never done before!
Look all of the work we just did to break down one sentence. This is why practice is so important! Just like we make conditional logic intuitive, let's make grammar intuitive!
@Hanifa Eh, as it ramps up it gets more interesting, but I found the early grammar lessons to be somewhat boring. Might be just a pacing/maintaining interest thing. I would have rolled my eyes if the lessons started with this.
omgg I hope future lessons contain occasional quick tests like this one did. I like how the first "answer" was actually incorrect but made a lot of us skeptical about whether we understood the material. It was a fun little exercise with just the right amount of adrenaline :)
66 comments
I BUILT THIS SENTENCE, ME, BRICK BY BRICK, AND ILL BE DAMNED IF I LET YOU MODIFY IT JUST CAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY ANOTHER PREDICATE LEAVES INFORMATION TO BE DESIRED
#feedback I had some difficulty with this lesson, gelling all the lessons together. I feel as if a skill builder like "identifying the kernel of a sentence" would be helpful to students so they feel more confident moving forward to the next lesson. Maybe a skill builder where you identify subject, object, predicate, noun, verb, etc. in complex sentences.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. A skill builder for identifying the kernel of a sentence would be useful in further understanding this lesson.
@Sunny CC @chiomavennessa I saw someone in the comments of a past section recommend the book, The Loophole, which I immediately purchased. It has a chapter where there are drills in the end to identify the core or 'kernel' of a sentence. I been using that textbook and 7sage simultaneously -- it's been another helpful tool on top of these lessons re: breaking down complex sentences.
I was ready to throw a chair with the first reveal.
im cooked
officially cooked
So....I got this soooo wrong. My God. I thought archeologist was the subject. Developments was not intuitive.
Well, I got that about as wrong as one could!
Sentences on the LSAT are like Ogres, which are like onions. Get it?
I do not
Take a break from studying and go watch SHREK!
Oh no, my writer brain is always stuck on active voice, aka passive sentences are bad. Here, I assumed archaeologists were the subject since they are the ones doing a thing, aka discovering. “Developments” cannot “do” a thing (“helped” in this case), so I missed all of this.
@studying4lsat123 I am also a writer, and I, too, just made this very same mistake. Great to know I'm not alone!
@studying4lsat123 omg, this brings me solace. I thought I was the only one. I need to rewire my brain with this exam lol
Cooked
@LSAT818 we twinning
twin we gotta lock in
@mnv449 nah we cooked 🥀
BRICK BY BRICK
This is actually a little fun
Why is discover not the main verb? How do you determine that it's helped?
It's because developments is the subject. The developments themselves didn't discover, the developments helped the archaeologists do the discovering.
This really helps with getting rid of jargon in test questions that take up too much brain power. I am bad with focusing on words that don't really hit at the core of the argument so I have blocked them out by just focusing on the "kernel" in the question.
What the scallop bro, I thought I was doing well until here
Phewww feel like I'm in 1st grade circling the subject and predicate on the white board. This part is fun!
How can we avoid from thinking that “discover” is a main verb instead of helped?
Hi,
One method I use is that I remove the Predicate, i.e. Verb and object; If the sentence does not make sense, then that's the main verb. For example, in "helped archeologists discover tombs". If you removed "helped archeologists" the sentence falls apart. If you remove "discover tombs", it does not. I hope that helps.
The main verb pertains to the subject of the sentence. Thus, the subject (developments) helped the archaeologists. The developments did not discover anything; rather, the archaeologists did that discovering. If the archaeologists were the main subject of a sentence, then perhaps their discovery could be the main verb, but that is not the case in this example.
Sensible.
As you see J.Y. do in real time. One of the best things you can do when breaking down complex sentence is ask yourself questions as you read the sentence.
Take the following sentence: The National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) (What the heck is this?) representatives (Okay, I see, the main subject is "representatives" but are we talking about all representatives? No. The subject-noun "The National Basketball Players Associations indicate that we are talking about a sub-set of representatives, the ones from the NBPA) (Okay, sounds good. Are we talking about all the representatives of the NBPA? Let's see.) that negotiated (Subject-verb) relentlessly and sought (Subject-verb) legal representation (I see. We are talking about a further subset of representatives, the ones that were relentless in their negotiations and the ones that sought legal representation. Mind you, this could be all of them, but it doesn't have to be.) agreed (Predicate verb)to a appropriate collective bargaining agreement (Predicate noun! Wait, was this agreement good or bad? Well, the word "appropriate" modifies the predicate noun and tells us that it was a good agreement) (is there further information I need to take away from this predicate phrase?) in a record setting time that ultimately led to unprecedent salaries (Yes there is! It set a record and was unprecedent!).
Strip everything away: Representatives agreed to a collective bargaining agreement.
Here is all the modifiers:
Representatives from the NBPA
Also, reps that negotiated and sought legal help.
Agreed to an appropriate agreement.
That was record setting and never done before!
Look all of the work we just did to break down one sentence. This is why practice is so important! Just like we make conditional logic intuitive, let's make grammar intuitive!
Great work! But remember what was said in the previous lesson, only nouns should make you think of subsets, not verbs.
At this point, I wonder why they put the grammar lessons second after the arguments.
Wouldn't it make more sense to go with grammar first? Just curious what could be the reason(s) not to start the foundation with grammar?
@Hanifa Eh, as it ramps up it gets more interesting, but I found the early grammar lessons to be somewhat boring. Might be just a pacing/maintaining interest thing. I would have rolled my eyes if the lessons started with this.
@GavinSchuerch It makes sense. I guess I was too focused on the practical use of it.
@GavinSchuerch good point, would not be super exciting to start with this
omgg I hope future lessons contain occasional quick tests like this one did. I like how the first "answer" was actually incorrect but made a lot of us skeptical about whether we understood the material. It was a fun little exercise with just the right amount of adrenaline :)
#feedback
OOh, this was a good one. Im starting to understand
This is freaking amazing oh my goodnes, chile.
Isn't the verb in the archaeologists sentence "helped discover" as helped is a catenative verb (linking verb) ?
I was close I put new development helped discover tombs.