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.
Question: how do you know which out of the many nouns is the correct subject? And the same for the verbs, how do you know which one is the predicate. i notice I'm having a little trouble determining the correct subject and predicate when fleshing out the simple sentence (if that makes any sense)
But the word "attempt" can be both a noun and a verb right? So why not explain why it isn't being used as a verb in this sentence because I assumed the subject would have been "leaders" with the simple sentence being "leaders sabotage". This was confusing and it really wasn't the best explanation in my opinion.
@ALMarshall Yes, but would the sentence make sense if you viewed "attempts" as a verb and "leaders" as the subject? If "attempts" is used as a verb, the "s" indicates that it is conjugated with a singular noun. You wouldn't say "leaders attempts..." You'd have to say "a leader attemptS." So if we think "attempts" is a verb, what is the noun that is doing the verb?
Also, if "leaders sabotage" is the core of the sentence, what happens to the part about "will backfire after the story is published"? What role does that play in the sentence?
Ultimately what's happening here is we often have to consider the surrounding words and context to determine the correct understanding of a word or phrase.
Consider:
"The call ended early."
Does it make sense that "call" is a noun here? And the subject of the sentence? Yes, "call" can be a verb, but it's not being used as one here. How do we know? Because it wouldn't make sense if "call" were a verb here. What is doing the calling?
"The call with the police ended early."
Here, "call with the police" is the subject. "Call" is the core of the subject, "with the police" is a modifier. Does it make sense that "call" is still a noun here, even though in other contexts it can be a verb? If we thought "call" was a verb, what's the noun that is doing the verb? "Police"? Police call...who? Who are they calling? This doesn't make sense.
This is the kind of analysis you'll want to engage in if you're getting confused about why certain words that have multiple meanings take on particular meanings in a given example. You have to use the surrounding words and context to understand why "call" is a noun here rather than a verb, or why "attempts" is a noun rather than a verb.
You know what I am just gonna find the core of the sentence I got Sabotage Vote will backfire... 7sage just expects me to know... Like these explanation are nonsense
hi, i have a question. Why isnt the kernel "the leaders sabotage the vote" with the subject being leaders, verb being to sabotage, and "the vote" being the object. Is it because I had to change the original phrasing of "to sabotage" into "sabotage"? Does that mean when you identify the kernel, you must keep the structure exactly as is and it must make sense as presented (leaders to sabotage the vote, doesn't hold up, for instance).
@tiba shlash @DavesHotChkn the sentence is specifically saying that the attempts by the leaders to sabotage the vote will backfire. the goal here is to understand the purpose of the sentence and how it informs the argument. the sentence talks about the *attempts* by the leaders and says that those attempts by the leaders are going to backfire. that's the meat of it, that's the kernel. hope that helps !
@tiba_shlash I think something else that may help out is asking WHO/WHAT the sentence is about. We could remove opposition leaders and still have a sentence that makes sense.
We cannot remove attempts and have it still make as much sense. When we come across "backfire", we would ask "what will backfire?". It makes slightly less sense.
I am not trying to jump the gun, but I think this will help with my overall understanding of the LSAT. I understand the importance of identifying grammatical components, but I am having trouble getting how this applies to certain LSAT question types. Can anyone help clear this up please, I am very confused. Thank you!!
@bellabb my understanding is that the LSAT is complex on purpose to try and confuse. Understanding the complexities helps make it less shocking and help you get right to the point! Knowing what's important versus context.
@bellabb As someone who has been studying for the past year. I'm reviewing this and this to me make so much sense when trying to paraphrase in your head the stimulus. As as Tabitha said getting to what is important.
@_seb The modifier "healthcare reform bill" is modifying the subject, not the predicate. In a clause structure of subject + predicate, the predicate can also refer to object + verb. In this case, its modifying "attempts" and not "backfire", thus it does not fit the criteria to be an object.
(Understand this is a necro comment lol, but hopefully useful for future students studying to recognize this)
One recommendation for anyone struggling that has worked really well for me is to parse through a sentence the same way it's done here. If you take the subject and write it out in small sentence form, it becomes much easier, albeit time-consuming, but very simple to understand. Hope that helps!
I am not understanding this :( I've read all the explanations in the comments and I understand why "The attempts" is the subject, but I don't understand WHY. When I try a new sentence I just fail to even get close to identifying the subject or the predicate. Does anyone have any tips to help a girl out?!
I believe because it is THE attempts..not “attempted” or “attempting” which would be the verb form of the word. The attempts (thing) belong to the opposition leaders.
See I thought the subject noun was the leaders since they are the first thing mentioned. Attempts seems to be a verb so I don’t see how it could be a subject noun.
I thought that at first glance as well, but when you reread the sentence, you can identify that every other part relates back to the 'attempts.' I'm not sure if that made sense, but that is how I identify the subjects.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
79 comments
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
feeling so chopped rn
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.
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
Question: how do you know which out of the many nouns is the correct subject? And the same for the verbs, how do you know which one is the predicate. i notice I'm having a little trouble determining the correct subject and predicate when fleshing out the simple sentence (if that makes any sense)
But the word "attempt" can be both a noun and a verb right? So why not explain why it isn't being used as a verb in this sentence because I assumed the subject would have been "leaders" with the simple sentence being "leaders sabotage". This was confusing and it really wasn't the best explanation in my opinion.
@ALMarshall Yes, but would the sentence make sense if you viewed "attempts" as a verb and "leaders" as the subject? If "attempts" is used as a verb, the "s" indicates that it is conjugated with a singular noun. You wouldn't say "leaders attempts..." You'd have to say "a leader attemptS." So if we think "attempts" is a verb, what is the noun that is doing the verb?
Also, if "leaders sabotage" is the core of the sentence, what happens to the part about "will backfire after the story is published"? What role does that play in the sentence?
Ultimately what's happening here is we often have to consider the surrounding words and context to determine the correct understanding of a word or phrase.
Consider:
"The call ended early."
Does it make sense that "call" is a noun here? And the subject of the sentence? Yes, "call" can be a verb, but it's not being used as one here. How do we know? Because it wouldn't make sense if "call" were a verb here. What is doing the calling?
"The call with the police ended early."
Here, "call with the police" is the subject. "Call" is the core of the subject, "with the police" is a modifier. Does it make sense that "call" is still a noun here, even though in other contexts it can be a verb? If we thought "call" was a verb, what's the noun that is doing the verb? "Police"? Police call...who? Who are they calling? This doesn't make sense.
This is the kind of analysis you'll want to engage in if you're getting confused about why certain words that have multiple meanings take on particular meanings in a given example. You have to use the surrounding words and context to understand why "call" is a noun here rather than a verb, or why "attempts" is a noun rather than a verb.
You know what I am just gonna find the core of the sentence I got Sabotage Vote will backfire... 7sage just expects me to know... Like these explanation are nonsense
hi, i have a question. Why isnt the kernel "the leaders sabotage the vote" with the subject being leaders, verb being to sabotage, and "the vote" being the object. Is it because I had to change the original phrasing of "to sabotage" into "sabotage"? Does that mean when you identify the kernel, you must keep the structure exactly as is and it must make sense as presented (leaders to sabotage the vote, doesn't hold up, for instance).
@tiba_shlash I am also confused on this, if anyone can provide feedback??
@tiba shlash @DavesHotChkn the sentence is specifically saying that the attempts by the leaders to sabotage the vote will backfire. the goal here is to understand the purpose of the sentence and how it informs the argument. the sentence talks about the *attempts* by the leaders and says that those attempts by the leaders are going to backfire. that's the meat of it, that's the kernel. hope that helps !
@FelipeCaceres-Cambero thank you
@tiba_shlash I think something else that may help out is asking WHO/WHAT the sentence is about. We could remove opposition leaders and still have a sentence that makes sense.
We cannot remove attempts and have it still make as much sense. When we come across "backfire", we would ask "what will backfire?". It makes slightly less sense.
I am not trying to jump the gun, but I think this will help with my overall understanding of the LSAT. I understand the importance of identifying grammatical components, but I am having trouble getting how this applies to certain LSAT question types. Can anyone help clear this up please, I am very confused. Thank you!!
@bellabb my understanding is that the LSAT is complex on purpose to try and confuse. Understanding the complexities helps make it less shocking and help you get right to the point! Knowing what's important versus context.
@bellabb As someone who has been studying for the past year. I'm reviewing this and this to me make so much sense when trying to paraphrase in your head the stimulus. As as Tabitha said getting to what is important.
im a little confused on why there is no object within this sentence. wouldn't the object be the healthcare reform bill? little lost.
@_seb The modifier "healthcare reform bill" is modifying the subject, not the predicate. In a clause structure of subject + predicate, the predicate can also refer to object + verb. In this case, its modifying "attempts" and not "backfire", thus it does not fit the criteria to be an object.
(Understand this is a necro comment lol, but hopefully useful for future students studying to recognize this)
One recommendation for anyone struggling that has worked really well for me is to parse through a sentence the same way it's done here. If you take the subject and write it out in small sentence form, it becomes much easier, albeit time-consuming, but very simple to understand. Hope that helps!
I am not understanding this :( I've read all the explanations in the comments and I understand why "The attempts" is the subject, but I don't understand WHY. When I try a new sentence I just fail to even get close to identifying the subject or the predicate. Does anyone have any tips to help a girl out?!
okay actually i might be dramatic i did the skill builders and got all except the last one, i think the longer sentences just scare me
LMFAO youre so real for that
@isabellamgoldstein29 thats so real LMAOOO
How and why are opposition leaders not the subject of the sentence? Attempts appears to be a verb
I believe because it is THE attempts..not “attempted” or “attempting” which would be the verb form of the word. The attempts (thing) belong to the opposition leaders.
See I thought the subject noun was the leaders since they are the first thing mentioned. Attempts seems to be a verb so I don’t see how it could be a subject noun.
I thought that at first glance as well, but when you reread the sentence, you can identify that every other part relates back to the 'attempts.' I'm not sure if that made sense, but that is how I identify the subjects.
First example with archeologists had me struggling a bit BUT I got this one right away so yas!
I thought the subject was leaders...
The sentence isn't about the leaders, it's about how their attempts will backfire. Everything else is modifying that core concept of the sentence.
Idk how we will have time to do all of this on the exam lol, we are already so crunched for time