you aren't this is an extremely barebones explanation of an extremely complex and nuanced topic. This is why people hate grammar. Is there something specific you aren't grasping?
My understanding is that if it is Leaders sabotage the vote, yes, we will know what leaders (opposition leaders) and know what vote they are sabotaging (on healthcare reform), but that leaves the rest of the sentence (the attempts... will backfire after the story is published) unaccounted for.
Finally! We have it. Aa prep company mentions that there is drawbacks to stripping away details of a sentence, paragraph, or even a passage. The drawback is that we lose information. Most prep says "just don't worry about the fluff" UHM no, the LSAT tests our ability to retain and understand detail, but as J.Y. rightly points out, what we are doing is putting the information (details) in boxes and opening them when we need to. Awesome!
For the various types of modifiers, the question method works, but I also like to "jump across the bridge" to see the core of a statement. When I come across a complex sentence, I look at the forest. I scan the sentence for the subject noun, boom spotted! Then I scan for the predicate verb, passing over whatever is in the middle, boom spotted! I create my own clause in my head with just the subject noun and the predicate Then, I will go back to read the modifiers with the core of the sentence in my head already in its own box.
Here is an example:
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game used basketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded, changed to the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.
Here is what my first scan over looks like. A cross through indicates that I did not read it.
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game usedbasketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded,changed to the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.
I take a second and think: The basketballs changed.
Great now let's dive back into it because we cannot just ignore that extra detail. But, now we are in control of the sentence because we already know what the core of it is saying! But, let's take it one by one.
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game usedbasketballs
Okay so are we talking about every basketball on the planet?
No, we are talking about a sub-set of the basketballs. The ones used in the NBA. Okay? Are we talking about all the basketballs that they use? Even the ones they use in practice? No. We are talking about the basketballs that the NBA uses in the games.
Great! Let's deep dive further.
basketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded
Are these basketballs made by someone in their garage? Unlikely! It is made my a sporting company! A good one or bad one? A reputable one! Did people like these basketballs? Yes. They were highly regarded!
We need to go further:
changed to the Wilson Sporting Company
What did they change to? Footballs? Are they going to be playing basketballs with footballs? Nope, they are still using basketballs! Then, where does the change come in? Well, the basketball they will be using is from a different company! Oh, is the company NASA, does NASA create basketballs? No. It is still a sporting company! Spalding??? No! This is a different company called Wilson.
We are almost there:
basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.
Why would they do such a thing if people liked the Spalding basketballs? Well, it seems that the change had something to do with a new sponsorship deal The NBA had with Wilson. What was so special about that sponsorship deal? Money talks. It created a large amount of profits.
(Subject-noun) basketballs
(modifying "basketballs") The National Basketball Association's (NBA)
(modifying "basketballs") game used
(modifying "basketballs") made by the reputable sporting company Spalding
(modifying "basketballs") highly regarded
(predicate-verb) changed
(modifying "changed") to the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs
(modifying "changed") after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits
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!
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.
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:
@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.
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.
This is extremely hard, I'm not even anywhere close to the right answer. I thought "leaders sabotage the vote" is the kernel, which still doesn't make sense why it's not. Leaders as subject, sabotage as the verb, and the vote as the object. Can someone correct me?
I can break down the sentence for you by using a very similar (but simpler sentence)
The attempts of cooking the popcorn will backfire after the microwave becomes sentient.
I took out the part "opposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill" to better show you what true kernel of the sentence is. In the sentence I wrote above, the kernel is that the "attempts will backfire". "Cooking the popcorn" cannot be the kernel of the sentence as it is specifying what kind of attempts are being made.
Going back to the original sentence: The attempts of opposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill will backfire after the story is published.
"leaders sabotaging the vote" as you described is merely specifying/modifying the type of attempts being made
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.
@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.
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)
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.
99 comments
Damn I might be stupid
you aren't this is an extremely barebones explanation of an extremely complex and nuanced topic. This is why people hate grammar. Is there something specific you aren't grasping?
this makes me feel so stupid likeeee
Me hitting "Mark complete" pretending I get it :D
Why is it not Leaders sabotage the vote?
Subject: Leaders
Predicate: Sabotage + the Vote/Votes
This is exactly what I got. This makes me more confused.
My understanding is that if it is Leaders sabotage the vote, yes, we will know what leaders (opposition leaders) and know what vote they are sabotaging (on healthcare reform), but that leaves the rest of the sentence (the attempts... will backfire after the story is published) unaccounted for.
glad to see i am not the only confused one in here
Its been like 10 years since I thought about grammar and I can TELL...
Finally! We have it. Aa prep company mentions that there is drawbacks to stripping away details of a sentence, paragraph, or even a passage. The drawback is that we lose information. Most prep says "just don't worry about the fluff" UHM no, the LSAT tests our ability to retain and understand detail, but as J.Y. rightly points out, what we are doing is putting the information (details) in boxes and opening them when we need to. Awesome!
For the various types of modifiers, the question method works, but I also like to "jump across the bridge" to see the core of a statement. When I come across a complex sentence, I look at the forest. I scan the sentence for the subject noun, boom spotted! Then I scan for the predicate verb, passing over whatever is in the middle, boom spotted! I create my own clause in my head with just the subject noun and the predicate Then, I will go back to read the modifiers with the core of the sentence in my head already in its own box.
Here is an example:
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game used basketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded, changed to the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.
Here is what my first scan over looks like. A cross through indicates that I did not read it.
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game usedbasketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded,changedto the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.I take a second and think: The basketballs changed.
Great now let's dive back into it because we cannot just ignore that extra detail. But, now we are in control of the sentence because we already know what the core of it is saying! But, let's take it one by one.
The National Basketball Association's (NBA) game usedbasketballs
Okay so are we talking about every basketball on the planet?
No, we are talking about a sub-set of the basketballs. The ones used in the NBA. Okay? Are we talking about all the basketballs that they use? Even the ones they use in practice? No. We are talking about the basketballs that the NBA uses in the games.
Great! Let's deep dive further.
basketballs, made by the reputable sporting company Spalding and were highly regarded
Are these basketballs made by someone in their garage? Unlikely! It is made my a sporting company! A good one or bad one? A reputable one! Did people like these basketballs? Yes. They were highly regarded!
We need to go further:
changed to the Wilson Sporting Company
What did they change to? Footballs? Are they going to be playing basketballs with footballs? Nope, they are still using basketballs! Then, where does the change come in? Well, the basketball they will be using is from a different company! Oh, is the company NASA, does NASA create basketballs? No. It is still a sporting company! Spalding??? No! This is a different company called Wilson.
We are almost there:
basketballs after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits.
Why would they do such a thing if people liked the Spalding basketballs? Well, it seems that the change had something to do with a new sponsorship deal The NBA had with Wilson. What was so special about that sponsorship deal? Money talks. It created a large amount of profits.
(Subject-noun) basketballs
(modifying "basketballs") The National Basketball Association's (NBA)
(modifying "basketballs") game used
(modifying "basketballs") made by the reputable sporting company Spalding
(modifying "basketballs") highly regarded
(predicate-verb) changed
(modifying "changed") to the Wilson Sporting Company basketballs
(modifying "changed") after the NBA received a sponsorship from Wilson that created a large amount of profits
@prestonbigley759 Thanks!
@prestonbigley759 this is amazing! thanks so much for this explanation
This lesson absolutely didn't make any sense to me, but can see how this will be important for the LSAT.
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!
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.
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.
feeling so big brain for understanding concepts i probably learned in elementary school
i thought sabotage would be a verb cause it is doing something, like its an action
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
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.
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.
This is extremely hard, I'm not even anywhere close to the right answer. I thought "leaders sabotage the vote" is the kernel, which still doesn't make sense why it's not. Leaders as subject, sabotage as the verb, and the vote as the object. Can someone correct me?
I can break down the sentence for you by using a very similar (but simpler sentence)
The attempts of cooking the popcorn will backfire after the microwave becomes sentient.
I took out the part "opposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill" to better show you what true kernel of the sentence is. In the sentence I wrote above, the kernel is that the "attempts will backfire". "Cooking the popcorn" cannot be the kernel of the sentence as it is specifying what kind of attempts are being made.
Going back to the original sentence: The attempts of opposition leaders to sabotage the vote on the healthcare reform bill will backfire after the story is published.
"leaders sabotaging the vote" as you described is merely specifying/modifying the type of attempts being made
hope this helps!
I thought the same.
Thanks!
Idk how we will have time to do all of this on the exam lol, we are already so crunched for time
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.
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
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)
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.
This has got to be a huge part of the RC section and dissecting question stems.
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.