is there then no object? I got this so wrong and thought it was "Opposition leaders (noun) sabotage (verb) the vote (object) which now that I look at that see that is a completely different meaning and the opposite of what the original sentence is trying to convey.
If you ever find yourself confusing the conclusions or main point of a question...or point at issue questions, removing modifiers will be a big help to understand the "What the hell are we talking about" question.
In more difficult stimuli, or q-stems that require me to know the main point or point at issue, I like to highlight [Subj.] [verb] [object] just to keep myself aware as I read through the answers.
IF it helps, here's how I use the tools on the practice:
I know I'm pretty early into the study lessons here but this feels like an extremely underrated section. I've used other lsat prep methods and none of them focus on grammar, which I would imagine many people(perhaps unknowingly) struggle with. Great section!
@KhushyMandania This thought isn't wrong necessarily. The attempt "to sabotage" is still a type of "attempt". "Attempt to sabotage" is a simple phrase, but cutting out the "to sabotage" part makes it EVEN simpler.
@DavidGe From my understanding, I think it’s just specifying which attempts — ‘the attempts.’ The word ‘attempts’ on its own can be interpreted more like an action, whereas ‘the attempts’ refers to something specific being discussed, not an action being performed.” Hope this helps!
@OmarAbuaita good clarification. My brain kept wanting to look for the object in the predicate even though it's not a required part of the predicate structure.
96 comments
lost ,
Basically the 4 W’s
-Who
-When
-Where
-What
-Why
is there then no object? I got this so wrong and thought it was "Opposition leaders (noun) sabotage (verb) the vote (object) which now that I look at that see that is a completely different meaning and the opposite of what the original sentence is trying to convey.
how does diagraming a sentence for structural clarity help us with taking the LSAT?
@tcbc59 It helps you get to the just of the sentence faster.
feeling so big brain for understanding concepts i probably learned in elementary school
This has got to be a huge part of the RC section and dissecting question stems.
lawdaddy420
I don't really understand how "attempts" isn't a verb. I guess I could see how it's a process, but that feels 50/50.
i thought sabotage would be a verb cause it is doing something, like its an action
BANG!
If you ever find yourself confusing the conclusions or main point of a question...or point at issue questions, removing modifiers will be a big help to understand the "What the hell are we talking about" question.
In more difficult stimuli, or q-stems that require me to know the main point or point at issue, I like to highlight [Subj.] [verb] [object] just to keep myself aware as I read through the answers.
IF it helps, here's how I use the tools on the practice:
Yellow = sentence structure (i.e. subject, object)
Pink = important detail or special verbiage (determined based on q-stem)
Orange = opposing thought, indicator, or change in p.o.v
Underline = Conclusion
***the color coding sometimes changes depending on the q-stem
I screwed this one up
This lesson absolutely didn't make any sense to me, but can see how this will be important for the LSAT.
Its been like 10 years since I thought about grammar and I can TELL...
I can see how this will help a lot for the RC section
@Lia24788 Was thinking that too.
feeling so chopped rn
@yes-coconuts Celery.
I know I'm pretty early into the study lessons here but this feels like an extremely underrated section. I've used other lsat prep methods and none of them focus on grammar, which I would imagine many people(perhaps unknowingly) struggle with. Great section!
So, how would one regurgitate this for a stimulus?
glad to see i am not the only confused one in here
this makes me feel so stupid likeeee
Why is it not "The attempts to sabotage will backfire?"
@KhushyMandania The attempts to sabotage would still be a subset of attempts.
@KhushyMandania This thought isn't wrong necessarily. The attempt "to sabotage" is still a type of "attempt". "Attempt to sabotage" is a simple phrase, but cutting out the "to sabotage" part makes it EVEN simpler.
@ZealousAltruisticMode thank you, I though the same thing and this explanation makes sense
Me hitting "Mark complete" pretending I get it :D
Does it matter if the is in the kernel "Attempts will backfire" "The attempts will backfire"
@DavidGe From my understanding, I think it’s just specifying which attempts — ‘the attempts.’ The word ‘attempts’ on its own can be interpreted more like an action, whereas ‘the attempts’ refers to something specific being discussed, not an action being performed.” Hope this helps!
Complex Sentence:
The attempts of opposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill will backfire after the story is published.
Editing Complex Sentence:
The attempts
ofopposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill willbackfireafter the story is published.The Attempts (Subject) will backfire (verb).
There is no object that the verb "backfire" is acting on.
@OmarAbuaita good clarification. My brain kept wanting to look for the object in the predicate even though it's not a required part of the predicate structure.
Thank you for the sentence example "Attempts will backfire" it is relevant to law and it was at least to me a good example