could someone explain why in q5 the predicate object is the spirit and not the elizabethan era? I am kind of confused about the hard and fast rules of modifier vs object
is it possible that for question 5, the writings could be the subject? after all what is the piece of text talking about? -- its these writings and they add the detail that these writings belong to William Shakespeare. Could anyone also see this line of thinking?
I'm kind of confused about the use of passive voice in question 3, but I'm not sure if I'm just being too nitty-gritty about grammar. Written in active voice, it would say "the existence of black holes puzzled early twentieth century physicists," so the subject would be "existence" (modified by "of black holes") and the predicate-verb would be "puzzled" (modified by "Early twentieth century physicists"). I thought changing between active and passive voice does not actually change what the subject vs object would be, so even though it's written in passive voice the subject would still be the black holes. Am I overthinking this?
@LucyB4 I was thinking about this as well, from what I understand the subject and object DO change.
In the sentence we looked at two lessons ago for example the subject and object does change in passive voice. "developments (s) helped archeologists (o)" vs archeologists (s) were helped by developments (verb modifier)
"New developments in satellite hardware and artificial intelligence imaging software helped archeologists discover tombs of pharaohs once thought to be mythical."
Important thing to note, its not either/or, its both. The phrases after "by" are the object of the preposition by, however in the entire sentence's context, the phrase modifies the verb.
4/5 well I should say 4.5/5 #3 I added black holes cause I thought it was the noun in the predicate but hey I'll take it. I'm breaking down these sentence one by one.
It is a commonly held misconception that the vocalizations of Felis catus—specifically the varied, rhythmic, and high-pitched sounds categorized as 'meowing' or 'yowling'—are intended primarily to communicate with other felines. However, recent bioacoustic studies suggest that these vocalizations, particularly when utilized in human environments, are rarely directed at other cats. Instead, when a domestic cat produces such rhythmic vocalizations, it is almost exclusively performing a series of complex sonic articulations, a phenomenon that effectively constitutes singing. Furthermore, when cats sing, they often do so to demand food or attention, which necessitates the presence of a responsive listener.
We won't need to do sentence breakdown like this on the LSAT, right? Asking because I have a degree in English Lit and am trying to figure out just how closely, if at all, to restudy this grammar.
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!
@vicdrucker I see what you're saying but I believe it just comes down to the phrasing. Ex. if you read "Sir Arthur convened the knights of the Round Table" you wouldn't think the object is the round table. So the "of" is the important difference. If the passage said "territorial America" then of course America would be the object.
Question 4 - Would/could it not be "Thomas Jefferson expanded America" instead of the territories. America seems like the better object of the sentence here.
Question 5 - This one seems like "William Shakespeare captured the elizabethan era" would make more sense. Saying "the spirit of" would add more context onto what about the Elizabethan era he was talking about.
@JHBalette In question 4, Thomas Jefferson expanded the territories would be the simplest form because it is just the who and what they did. America would stem off from the territories as that would be additional detail explaining what the territory is. For question five it is similar. Who? William Shakespeare. Did what? Captured. Captured what? the spirit. Everything else would be details expanding on that.
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.
Someone please correct my logic for #4 : During his presidency, Thomas Jeffersonexpandedthe territories of America by acquiring the Louisiana purchase.
[Subject-noun] Thomas Jefferson
[Predicate-verb] expanded
[Modifying "expanded"] during his presidency
[Modifying "expanded"] by acquiring the Louisiana purchase
[Predicate-object] America
[Modifying "America"] the territories of
I feel that "America" is as logically an object as "the territories" in this context. We are given these choices :
The object is America. What part of America? "The territories of America".
OR
the object is "the territories", i.e. the concept of all territorial polities. Which territories? Those of America.
It just seems simpler to parse the sentence the way I did. Am I wrong?
@vicdrucker I wouldn't say that you were wrong. More like the answer they gave is the most bare bones interpretation of the passage. America being the next modifier.
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.
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
#5 was hard beacuse at first, i thought william shakespeare as the subject, but then i second guessed to thinking it would be "writings" which i feel is a solid mistake to make because everything still makes sense after that with the P/V & P/O.
Can't it be possible that the writings captured the spriti too?
@tporter1 Happened the same to me...but then I asked myself: Whos writings captured the spirit of the Elizabethan era through his dramas and poems? William Shakespeare [Subject].
@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.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
164 comments
I'm not quite understanding how black holes are not an object?
could someone explain why in q5 the predicate object is the spirit and not the elizabethan era? I am kind of confused about the hard and fast rules of modifier vs object
@AvaHosseini He did not capture the Elizabethan era, he captured the spirit of the era.
is it possible that for question 5, the writings could be the subject? after all what is the piece of text talking about? -- its these writings and they add the detail that these writings belong to William Shakespeare. Could anyone also see this line of thinking?
5/5 Being an ESL teacher comes in handy
Billy Shakespeare 😂
kernels gang up 5/5
For Q2, why is it “the rain” and not just “rain”? Nonetheless, I did pretty good on this.
5/5
5/5
I'm kind of confused about the use of passive voice in question 3, but I'm not sure if I'm just being too nitty-gritty about grammar. Written in active voice, it would say "the existence of black holes puzzled early twentieth century physicists," so the subject would be "existence" (modified by "of black holes") and the predicate-verb would be "puzzled" (modified by "Early twentieth century physicists"). I thought changing between active and passive voice does not actually change what the subject vs object would be, so even though it's written in passive voice the subject would still be the black holes. Am I overthinking this?
@LucyB4 I was thinking about this as well, from what I understand the subject and object DO change.
In the sentence we looked at two lessons ago for example the subject and object does change in passive voice. "developments (s) helped archeologists (o)" vs archeologists (s) were helped by developments (verb modifier)
"New developments in satellite hardware and artificial intelligence imaging software helped archeologists discover tombs of pharaohs once thought to be mythical."
Important thing to note, its not either/or, its both. The phrases after "by" are the object of the preposition by, however in the entire sentence's context, the phrase modifies the verb.
Hope that helps, feel free to correct me
Easy Peasy!
4/5 well I should say 4.5/5 #3 I added black holes cause I thought it was the noun in the predicate but hey I'll take it. I'm breaking down these sentence one by one.
What I learned is (skip to ****)
It is a commonly held misconception that the vocalizations of Felis catus—specifically the varied, rhythmic, and high-pitched sounds categorized as 'meowing' or 'yowling'—are intended primarily to communicate with other felines. However, recent bioacoustic studies suggest that these vocalizations, particularly when utilized in human environments, are rarely directed at other cats. Instead, when a domestic cat produces such rhythmic vocalizations, it is almost exclusively performing a series of complex sonic articulations, a phenomenon that effectively constitutes singing. Furthermore, when cats sing, they often do so to demand food or attention, which necessitates the presence of a responsive listener.
*******Or in simpler terms cats sing.
We won't need to do sentence breakdown like this on the LSAT, right? Asking because I have a degree in English Lit and am trying to figure out just how closely, if at all, to restudy this grammar.
@SofiyaBerman There are no grammar questions in the LSAT, but breaking sentences down can help with comprehension.
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!
@vicdrucker I see what you're saying but I believe it just comes down to the phrasing. Ex. if you read "Sir Arthur convened the knights of the Round Table" you wouldn't think the object is the round table. So the "of" is the important difference. If the passage said "territorial America" then of course America would be the object.
4/5 These were so confusing... Definitely took me a minute and rewatching the videos.
Question 4 - Would/could it not be "Thomas Jefferson expanded America" instead of the territories. America seems like the better object of the sentence here.
Question 5 - This one seems like "William Shakespeare captured the elizabethan era" would make more sense. Saying "the spirit of" would add more context onto what about the Elizabethan era he was talking about.
@JHBalette In question 4, Thomas Jefferson expanded the territories would be the simplest form because it is just the who and what they did. America would stem off from the territories as that would be additional detail explaining what the territory is. For question five it is similar. Who? William Shakespeare. Did what? Captured. Captured what? the spirit. Everything else would be details expanding on that.
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.
Someone please correct my logic for #4 : During his presidency, Thomas Jefferson expanded the territories of America by acquiring the Louisiana purchase.
[Subject-noun] Thomas Jefferson
[Predicate-verb] expanded
[Modifying "expanded"] during his presidency
[Modifying "expanded"] by acquiring the Louisiana purchase
[Predicate-object] America
[Modifying "America"] the territories of
I feel that "America" is as logically an object as "the territories" in this context. We are given these choices :
The object is America. What part of America? "The territories of America".
OR
the object is "the territories", i.e. the concept of all territorial polities. Which territories? Those of America.
It just seems simpler to parse the sentence the way I did. Am I wrong?
@vicdrucker I wouldn't say that you were wrong. More like the answer they gave is the most bare bones interpretation of the passage. America being the next modifier.
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
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
#5 was hard beacuse at first, i thought william shakespeare as the subject, but then i second guessed to thinking it would be "writings" which i feel is a solid mistake to make because everything still makes sense after that with the P/V & P/O.
Can't it be possible that the writings captured the spriti too?
@tporter1 Happened the same to me...but then I asked myself: Whos writings captured the spirit of the Elizabethan era through his dramas and poems? William Shakespeare [Subject].
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!
Got all subjects and verbs right, just need more practice on the predicate-object