still struggling on master the subject noun (person place or thing or concept. and the predicate. I'm either too specific or just way off. Idk this is confusing
During my service in the Marine Corps, I noticed that most of my Marines tended to overexplain everything. Briefs, orders, and general interactions were always filled with more detail, context, and superfluous modifiers that didn't benefit the message they were trying to communicate. We used to harp on brevity—say what you mean and mean what you say. I found myself—whether in my head or aloud—constantly saying "Get to the point! (GTTP or GTTFP if you want some extra flavor.)
Since being reintroduced to that, now as a tool for identifying claims, I've found that it works for me almost every time and the same rule applies with isolating the subject and predicate. If you had someone rambling about botanists, plants, and phosphorous and you told them to get to the point with as little fluff as possible, you'd likely end up with the subject and the predicate. That certainly wouldn't be a very helpful sentence but it would, in fact, be a sentence.
I'm not sure if anyone will find this helpful but I'm thinking "GTTFP" with almost every sentence I initially read and its proved helpful so far.
It seems a bit hard to identify the subject, predicate, and object. There are certain sentences that I thought were the sub, pred, and obj. but wasn't. For example, sentence 3, I chose: Botanists extract leaves
The best way for me to understand this was take the whole sentence and ask myself what matters. For question 1 the only details that mattered were "schools are not eligible".
Then when it comes down to identifying modifiers I ask myself "what kind". Schools, what kind of schools? Schools that fail to provide adequate facilities for physical education. For the next part of "are not eligible" I asked myself "for what?". are not eligible, for what? For the grant. This is how I broke things down for myself
My question and maybe it is talked about in later videos, but could we not simply say that modifiers are context (thus not 'part' of the argument), like we learn in the arguments unit?
any prepositional phrase in the sentence cannot be apart of the object, noun or verb. while they are important to the sentence, they are not important in the structure.
eg: "to provide adequate facilities", "for physical education", "for the grant" these are disqualified from being the subject, verb, and object in the first sentence bc they are in prepositional phrases
how you know when to cut the prepositional phrase off: if the verb/preposition are answered or another preposition is presented
My biggest issue was having trouble understanding the questions but this really opened my eyes and allowed me to look at it differently so I can actually understand it now!
These kernel exercises are a very useful technique for breaking down these complex LSAT word jumbles they call sentences.
humbly requesting or hope there is or will be more lessons on breaking sentences into kernels. As a struggling student with reading this is very helpful.
This is how I broke down question 4 (I'm not sure if my thinking was wrong or right because I did get the correct answers, however, I add extra words):
subject= science fiction
modifier ["science fiction"]= well-researched
predicate-verb= reflects
predicate-object= the views of scientists
modifying ['the views of scientists"]= who contribute as consultants
kernel: science fiction reflects the views of scientist
For sentence four, why isn't the answer "Science fiction reflects views" ?
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
71 comments
If anyone's struggling with grammar/language, let me know. I'd be happy to try and help. I'm an English tutor and I have experience in this.
(Also not advertising services; just offering free help to peers on this platform, DM/reply anytime)
Is everyone understanding all of this
Kids who play neither video games nor board games are understimulated.
[Subject-noun] Kids
[Modifying kids] who play neither video games nor board games
[predicate-verb] are understimulated
Botanists recently discovered plants that can extract phosphorus from the sand covering their leaves.
[subject-noun] Botanists
[modifying-verb] recently
[predicate-verb] discovered
[predicate-object] plants
[modifying-object] that can extract phosphorus from the sand covering their leaves
Well-researched science fiction reflects the views of scientists who contributed as consultants.
[subject-noun] fiction
[modifying-subject] well-researched science
[predicate-verb] reflects
[predicate-object] the views
[modifying-object] scientists
[modifying-scientists] who contributed as consultants
still struggling on master the subject noun (person place or thing or concept. and the predicate. I'm either too specific or just way off. Idk this is confusing
During my service in the Marine Corps, I noticed that most of my Marines tended to overexplain everything. Briefs, orders, and general interactions were always filled with more detail, context, and superfluous modifiers that didn't benefit the message they were trying to communicate. We used to harp on brevity—say what you mean and mean what you say. I found myself—whether in my head or aloud—constantly saying "Get to the point! (GTTP or GTTFP if you want some extra flavor.)
Since being reintroduced to that, now as a tool for identifying claims, I've found that it works for me almost every time and the same rule applies with isolating the subject and predicate. If you had someone rambling about botanists, plants, and phosphorous and you told them to get to the point with as little fluff as possible, you'd likely end up with the subject and the predicate. That certainly wouldn't be a very helpful sentence but it would, in fact, be a sentence.
I'm not sure if anyone will find this helpful but I'm thinking "GTTFP" with almost every sentence I initially read and its proved helpful so far.
It seems a bit hard to identify the subject, predicate, and object. There are certain sentences that I thought were the sub, pred, and obj. but wasn't. For example, sentence 3, I chose: Botanists extract leaves
The best way for me to understand this was take the whole sentence and ask myself what matters. For question 1 the only details that mattered were "schools are not eligible".
Then when it comes down to identifying modifiers I ask myself "what kind". Schools, what kind of schools? Schools that fail to provide adequate facilities for physical education. For the next part of "are not eligible" I asked myself "for what?". are not eligible, for what? For the grant. This is how I broke things down for myself
I'm still so lost how does he know which words are what
My question and maybe it is talked about in later videos, but could we not simply say that modifiers are context (thus not 'part' of the argument), like we learn in the arguments unit?
#feedback The captions at 4:42 read "What kind of plant cut into this upset?" when it should read "What kind of plant cut into this subset?"
Number 4 I got wrong. I thought the Kernal was reflects the views of scientists. I wasn’t thinking of fiction as the subject-noun at all.
This is how i learned it in 6th grade:
any prepositional phrase in the sentence cannot be apart of the object, noun or verb. while they are important to the sentence, they are not important in the structure.
eg: "to provide adequate facilities", "for physical education", "for the grant" these are disqualified from being the subject, verb, and object in the first sentence bc they are in prepositional phrases
how you know when to cut the prepositional phrase off: if the verb/preposition are answered or another preposition is presented
hope this is helpful!
BRUUU ....IM JUST SO LOST LOL
This is helpful but how do you do this breakdown actually as you take the exam?
I know it doesn't make sense grammatically if you made it the object in the kernel of the sentence, but why wouldn't grants be the object?
[This comment was deleted.]
My biggest issue was having trouble understanding the questions but this really opened my eyes and allowed me to look at it differently so I can actually understand it now!
These are a little tricky.
I was on a roll until question 4. The kernel I got for 4 was: Science reflects scientists
Science modifiers: Well-researched, fiction
Reflects modifiers: the views
Scientists modifiers: who contributed as consultants
Schools that fail to provide adequate facilities for physical education are not eligible for the grant.
Subject: Schools.
Verb: Fail.
Object: Not eligible for funding.
Isnt that the verb?
These kernel exercises are a very useful technique for breaking down these complex LSAT word jumbles they call sentences.
humbly requesting or hope there is or will be more lessons on breaking sentences into kernels. As a struggling student with reading this is very helpful.
This is how I broke down question 4 (I'm not sure if my thinking was wrong or right because I did get the correct answers, however, I add extra words):
subject= science fiction
modifier ["science fiction"]= well-researched
predicate-verb= reflects
predicate-object= the views of scientists
modifying ['the views of scientists"]= who contribute as consultants
kernel: science fiction reflects the views of scientist
My biggest take away from the last view videos is that things that you think are important to a sentence, are not.
I can not get this video to load for some reason. All the others before this have played just fine, but this one isn't. Can anyone help me? lol
For sentence four, why isn't the answer "Science fiction reflects views" ?