He says in the video don't get too caught up in the details as long as you can get the main subject and verb. As long as you can identify the main point of the sentence among all the modifiers thats the most important part.
I, too, thought that "black holes" was the predicate-object in #3. Based on the comments, it is not the predicate-object because it comes after a preposition. I need to work on being able to determine when a predicate-object is evident in a sentence, and when it is not.
Previous lessons said that subjects can also contain a verb. I was anticipating seeing some examples of subject-verb in this skill builder.
@listening 'were' is the plural past tense of the verb 'to be'.
All you need to establish the subject-predicate relationship is that the physicists (the subject) were puzzled (the predicate). Everything else, what puzzled them, is just window dressing.
"Early twentieth century physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes."
KERNEL: Physicists were puzzled by black holes.
Subject (Noun): Physicists
Modifiers: Early twentieth century
Predicate (Verb): Were puzzled by
Predicate (Object): Black holes
Modifiers: The existence of
I know its the existence of black holes, but are black holes not a subject? "The existence of black holes" with black holes being the subject, and "the existence of" being the modifier?
@7sagecb225 wait I thought in terms of objects of predicates they are nouns correct? But earlier it said that nouns can be concepts or ideas as well so in that sense wouldn't the existence of the black hole be a noun and therefore the object of predicate?
@NoaF123 I got it wrong too but i'm wondering if the kernel is just the "physicists were puzzled" and what the physicists were puzzled by is the existence of black holes as a modifier?
@NoaF123 I gotchu twin! I've been reading grammar books for fun for years now lol: the whole point of the 'black holes' sub-clause is to enunciate the larger clause from which it derives, in this case, the existence. This is primarily because if we strip the sentence all the way down and we're just left with the bare bones, the existence is all we need to know at a basic level. Of course, all the black holes do here is just give us details about what was so 'puzzling' for 'physicists' regarding "the existence" of something in the first place. If that makes any sense? If not, I can always reply here and do a little less jargon-esque response lol.
It seems that in some of these lessons, we're attempting to strip down sentences into the bare-most elements. Even if it doesn't make perfect, everyday English sense to say, "physicists were puzzled," for instance, we're learning the skill of highlighting each element of grammar so that we can fully grasp these elements. It's hard, introspecting on grammatical rules we've held our entire lives!! Be gracious and patient with yourself!
@soupie I would say ask yourself Who? What? When? How? Where? . Think of yourself as an investigator or the attorney asking the defendant questions on a stand.
Example: During the fall season, the President of the United States, Conrad, shot his aggressive assistant because he was trying to defend himself
The Subject: Conrad Verb: Shot Object: Hisassistant.
You see how I flushed out the main point of this sentence? The rest of the words are modifiers (details). That's when the details come in... Why did he shoot his assistant? Because he was trying to defend himself. Why was he trying to defend himself? The assistant was Aggressive. Who is Conrad? The president of the U.S. .... when? During the fall season.
I feel like this grammar section is more confusing than helpful, if you're a native English speaker you have an internal grammar engine. We don't have time on the LSAT to take mental note of subject-noun, predicate verb, modifying, predicate object etc and learn what these mean. Theres key things i feel like we should know like sufficient/necessary conditions, premise, conclusion etc.
It says to identify the subject, predicate, and modifiers. But then it asks us other things, like object-noun and predicate-object? That kind of threw me off a bit
198 comments
#feedback I would love if I could underline/highlight my answers within these types of skill builders
Highlighting would be really helpful
chile im confused
@pomergranatewellbutrin SAME HAHAHA
number 3 kind of confused because i though that the object of puzzled was black holes
@KeziaH19 I thought so too
@Ares I thought so as well
@KeziaH19 same here
@KeziaH19 i have the same question!
is it me or is this challenging lmfao
@_seb It's not just you. I feel really stupid right now.
This makes me nervous lol
He says in the video don't get too caught up in the details as long as you can get the main subject and verb. As long as you can identify the main point of the sentence among all the modifiers thats the most important part.
@bmo562 Thank you! Because the rest is infuriating lol.
Why am I being humbled by sentence structure right now omg
I, too, thought that "black holes" was the predicate-object in #3. Based on the comments, it is not the predicate-object because it comes after a preposition. I need to work on being able to determine when a predicate-object is evident in a sentence, and when it is not.
Previous lessons said that subjects can also contain a verb. I was anticipating seeing some examples of subject-verb in this skill builder.
@Cee🦋 I had the same thought. Came to the comments looking for an answer, and you explained it well
in #3, can anyone help me understand why there is no predicate-object? I though it would be "black holes," but there is none identified in the answer
@listening me too!
@listening 'were' is the plural past tense of the verb 'to be'.
All you need to establish the subject-predicate relationship is that the physicists (the subject) were puzzled (the predicate). Everything else, what puzzled them, is just window dressing.
@vicdrucker put it in active voice!
Who is this new voice
For question 3, why is this not the answer?
"Early twentieth century physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes."
KERNEL: Physicists were puzzled by black holes.
Subject (Noun): Physicists
Modifiers: Early twentieth century
Predicate (Verb): Were puzzled by
Predicate (Object): Black holes
Modifiers: The existence of
I know its the existence of black holes, but are black holes not a subject? "The existence of black holes" with black holes being the subject, and "the existence of" being the modifier?
I have the same question
@ariannaalamo2911 I thought that too. I don't understand why black holes isn't the subject.
On Question 3, why is "black holes" not considered the object of the predicate?
Because they weren't just puzzled by black holes. They were puzzled by the existence of the black holes.
For instance, think about the difference between "I'm confused by you" vs. "I'm confused by the existence of you". Subtle but important difference.
@7sagecb225 wait I thought in terms of objects of predicates they are nouns correct? But earlier it said that nouns can be concepts or ideas as well so in that sense wouldn't the existence of the black hole be a noun and therefore the object of predicate?
this ain't it chat
I'm not quite understanding how black holes are not an object?
@NoaF123 Same. He quickly went through that one with no explanation.
@NoaF123 I got it wrong too but i'm wondering if the kernel is just the "physicists were puzzled" and what the physicists were puzzled by is the existence of black holes as a modifier?
@NoaF123 I gotchu twin! I've been reading grammar books for fun for years now lol: the whole point of the 'black holes' sub-clause is to enunciate the larger clause from which it derives, in this case, the existence. This is primarily because if we strip the sentence all the way down and we're just left with the bare bones, the existence is all we need to know at a basic level. Of course, all the black holes do here is just give us details about what was so 'puzzling' for 'physicists' regarding "the existence" of something in the first place. If that makes any sense? If not, I can always reply here and do a little less jargon-esque response lol.
It seems that in some of these lessons, we're attempting to strip down sentences into the bare-most elements. Even if it doesn't make perfect, everyday English sense to say, "physicists were puzzled," for instance, we're learning the skill of highlighting each element of grammar so that we can fully grasp these elements. It's hard, introspecting on grammatical rules we've held our entire lives!! Be gracious and patient with yourself!
Got all subjects and verbs right, just need more practice on the predicate-object
Question 3 was the one that got me, I thought black holes would've been the object.
@ErikKrauss Same !! It was not one at all apparently
I think the main point of this section is to quickly digest sentences into an accurate and understandable form
help
@soupie same. I'm so confused. Apparently, I need to go back to elementary school. I am so confused.
@KristinaTilley LOLL GLAD ITS NOT JUST ME
@soupie I would say ask yourself Who? What? When? How? Where? . Think of yourself as an investigator or the attorney asking the defendant questions on a stand.
Example: During the fall season, the President of the United States, Conrad, shot his aggressive assistant because he was trying to defend himself
The Subject: Conrad Verb: Shot Object: His assistant.
You see how I flushed out the main point of this sentence? The rest of the words are modifiers (details). That's when the details come in... Why did he shoot his assistant? Because he was trying to defend himself. Why was he trying to defend himself? The assistant was Aggressive. Who is Conrad? The president of the U.S. .... when? During the fall season.
After doing this, I feel like I should have failed the second grade.
Lil Durk is the Goat of all time.
Subject Durk
Predicate: is the Goat
Modifier: Lil, of all time.
Mega cap. Chief keef is the Goat of all time
Subject: Chief Keef
Predicate: is the Goat
Modifier: of all time
Cap.. YB is the Goat of all time.
Subject: YB
Predicate: is the Goat
Modifier: of all time
Giga cap. Future is the Goat of all time.
Subject future
Predicate is the goat
modifier of all time
tera cap. Drake is the Goat of all time.
subject: Drake
predicate: is the goat
modifier: of all time
Peta cap. Kanye West is the Goat of all time.
Subject: Kanye West
Predicate: is the Goat
Modifier: of all time
Exa cap. Kendrick Lamar is the Goat of all time
Subject: Kendrick Lamar
Predicate: is the Goat
Modifier: of all time
I got all the subjects, objects, and verbs right. I can get most modifiers right, but I need more practice on what the modifier is acting on.
I hope this makes sense. The subject modifier answers the question who? The verb modifier answers how? and the object modifier answers to which?
In his writings, William Shakespeare captured the spirit of the Elizabethan era through his dramas and poems.
Subject - noun: William Shakespeare
Predicate: captured the spirit
Verb modifier: (how did he capture the spirit?) in his writings + through his dramas and poems.
Object modifier (which spirit?): of the Elizabethan era
I feel like this grammar section is more confusing than helpful, if you're a native English speaker you have an internal grammar engine. We don't have time on the LSAT to take mental note of subject-noun, predicate verb, modifying, predicate object etc and learn what these mean. Theres key things i feel like we should know like sufficient/necessary conditions, premise, conclusion etc.
It says to identify the subject, predicate, and modifiers. But then it asks us other things, like object-noun and predicate-object? That kind of threw me off a bit