This was a game changer for me. Yes I learned this in elementary school, but being able to really apply it is helping make more sense of the nonsense arguments.
I was really nervous when I put down "fiction" as the subject instead of science-fiction. I think there are a lot of modified subjects that we view as it's own thing. To me science fiction and fiction are two entirely different things, because fiction has an invisible modifier (general) in my head that doesn't make me view them as of the same category. I will have to look out for that in the future!
If I group the verb and object together like sentence 4 for example, I said fiction then reflects the views, does it matter that I didn't separate them?
@GabrielaH So in the sentences that we're analyzing, we have a subject (the noun/thing doing the action) and we have an object (the noun/thing that the SUBJECT is doing something to/about).
Very basically, a sentence is made up of these parts:
Note that the object of the sentence is what the subject (main noun, I like to call it) "does the verb" to.
We add extra words such as adjectives (describing words) or modifiers to MODIFY the things we're talking about because they make things more specific for us.
In #4, the subject is FICTION. What kind of fiction? Well, SCIENCE fiction (sci-fi). What kind of sci-fi? Not just any sci-fi but, WELL-RESEARCHED sci-fi.
So really, the full, specific subject of the sentence is WELL-RESEARCHED SCI-FI.
What's the subject doing? (hint: look at the action word/verb) The subject, well-researched sci-fi, is REFLECTING something to us. Well-researched sci-fi REFLECTS something to us. What does it reflect (or, show)? Well, it reflects VIEWS to us. Whose views? What views? Well, the views of scientists. Not just any scientists, but the views of scientists who contributed as consultants.
So the sentence can be broken down like this:
Subject of the sentence: Fiction
Adjectives (describing words) making the subject more specific (modifying the subject, in other words): Science (giving us science fiction); well-researched (giving us WELL-RESEARCHED fiction...or well-research science fiction).
Object: Views
Modifiers to make VIEWS more specific: THE views OF scientists who contributed as consultants.
Therefore, full object of the sentence: the views of consulting scientists
Please lmk if that is unclear or if I should explain anything further!! Hope it helps.
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
@emmalc02 because the sentence is about what the botanists have discovered (subject + action). Everything to do with the plants is extra. The sentence would be drastically different if you took out the botanist part.
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!
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.
88 comments
Dayum. Sentence 3 really tripped me up.
This was a game changer for me. Yes I learned this in elementary school, but being able to really apply it is helping make more sense of the nonsense arguments.
I was really nervous when I put down "fiction" as the subject instead of science-fiction. I think there are a lot of modified subjects that we view as it's own thing. To me science fiction and fiction are two entirely different things, because fiction has an invisible modifier (general) in my head that doesn't make me view them as of the same category. I will have to look out for that in the future!
I need to work on finding the difference in subject-noun and the predicate-object; since that seems to effect the entire breakdown.
This was the lesson that made all these grammar sections make sense, This was really cool.
i'm cooked
@Anthony.pardella@gmail.com Lock in, twin
If I group the verb and object together like sentence 4 for example, I said fiction then reflects the views, does it matter that I didn't separate them?
For the third sentence in this example video, why is the simple sentence not 'plants extract phosphorus' instead?
@NorahBello I believe it is because plants are not the subject of the sentence. The botanists are.
@SeanWatson ah! I see, thank you :)
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)
@KirinTor I would like some help with the grammar :)
@Adomingues2027 Sure! What's your question? Feel free to DM if you prefer
@KirinTor This is appreciated, thank you!
@Cee🦋 Ofc! Happy to try and help
@KirinTor can you explain question number 4. Please
@GabrielaH So in the sentences that we're analyzing, we have a subject (the noun/thing doing the action) and we have an object (the noun/thing that the SUBJECT is doing something to/about).
Very basically, a sentence is made up of these parts:
Sentence = Subject (Noun/ThingDoingAction) + Predicate (Verb & Object)
Note that the object of the sentence is what the subject (main noun, I like to call it) "does the verb" to.
We add extra words such as adjectives (describing words) or modifiers to MODIFY the things we're talking about because they make things more specific for us.
In #4, the subject is FICTION. What kind of fiction? Well, SCIENCE fiction (sci-fi). What kind of sci-fi? Not just any sci-fi but, WELL-RESEARCHED sci-fi.
So really, the full, specific subject of the sentence is WELL-RESEARCHED SCI-FI.
What's the subject doing? (hint: look at the action word/verb) The subject, well-researched sci-fi, is REFLECTING something to us. Well-researched sci-fi REFLECTS something to us. What does it reflect (or, show)? Well, it reflects VIEWS to us. Whose views? What views? Well, the views of scientists. Not just any scientists, but the views of scientists who contributed as consultants.
So the sentence can be broken down like this:
Subject of the sentence: Fiction
Adjectives (describing words) making the subject more specific (modifying the subject, in other words): Science (giving us science fiction); well-researched (giving us WELL-RESEARCHED fiction...or well-research science fiction).
Object: Views
Modifiers to make VIEWS more specific: THE views OF scientists who contributed as consultants.
Therefore, full object of the sentence: the views of consulting scientists
Please lmk if that is unclear or if I should explain anything further!! Hope it helps.
@KirinTor Tha
Is everyone understanding all of this
@SarahShaver Yes. I'd be happy to answer any grammar questions you have if you ever need help (:
@SarahShaver No
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!
@mollygerm this really helped, God richly bless you
@mollygerm Thank you. This kids video helped me better understand your comment also Prepositional phrase
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.]
@emmalc02 because the sentence is about what the botanists have discovered (subject + action). Everything to do with the plants is extra. The sentence would be drastically different if you took out the botanist part.
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!