@Okknicoleee Think of the object as receiving (or being directly impacted by) the subject's action. Birds catch worms. Bird is the subject, catch is the action (verb), and worm is the object. It's important to make this distinction because it's the bird doing the catching. It's not the worm that is catching the bird.
A subject of a sentence is the "do-er", the object is the thing that gets "acted on".
Alfred Wegener developed the concept. "Alfred" is the subject, while "concept" is the object. Alfred is the one who is doing, the concept is the thing being acted on. Notice: the concept did NOT develop Alfred Wegener.
Can anyone help me understand Q5 why the stripped down sentence " that there is a relationship" is not an predicate-object? Just like Q3, where 'Billboards are the basis of our business' is an object of "declared," isn't "concluded" the same structure?
In both:
The that-clause completes the verb.
and you can ask: Declared what? Concluded what?
So why is it that for Q5 it's labeled as a modifier?
@Shrimpi I'm not 100% sure but a study concluding can happen with no additional information. It would just mean it ended, though, so not enough context. Declared maybe doesn't work the same way?
Initially, they asked what a predicate and Noun was. But as you continue and hit "Answer," they start hitting you with things like "subject-noun, Subject-verb, Indirect-object, Direct-object" like huh? I feel like I am getting more confused, and I know I am not alone since there are over 250+ comments as well. Thoughts anyone?
@Ryo He's just fleshing out the different aspects of the previous lessons.
[subject-noun] - they're referring to what noun is the subject of the whole sentence.
[predicate-verb] - what verb is associated with what the subject is doing.
[predicate-object] - nouns that can be part of the predicate and describe what the object is doing.
You're looking for those aspects of the sentence to figure out what these convoluted sentences are saying:
[subject] [predicate].
All the other ["blank" modifies] refer to all the words that build around that subject-predicate relationship and give it more context, as well as what aspect of the relationship they are trying to describe.
It's been tricky at times to distinguish between the predicate object and modifier. For example on Q4 I initially thought the winds were the object but they turned out to be a modifier.
The main pattern that I have recognized, is if the predicate verb is acting on the following object, then it is an predicate object. So in Q2 when Wegener developed the concept, the concept is the object because it is being developed. However in Q4, the winds are actually acting in reverse on the verb. The formation isn't triggering the winds, they are triggered by the winds. That key word by shows me that the following object is modifying the verb. Likewise, on the last skill builder, the physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes. It's easy to think:
physicists = subject
were puzzled = predicate verb
the existence = object,
but the word "by" signifies to me the existence is acting upon them being puzzled, therefore it is a modifier. It is only an object when it is necessary to grammatically complete the sentence, which is always going to be when the verb is acting upon the following object and therefore incomplete without it.
Other key words are the "is" before triggered, and the "were" before puzzled. Those signify it is a complete thought and therefore not reliant on the following word as an object.
@tporter1 If I understand correctly it is describing the "when" of the development/action and doesn't really comment on the subject. Just like how in Q3 "At the meeting" modifies declared. It is the "where" it was declared/the action happened but doesn't really comment on Mary.
@ShortBee It took me a long time to figure this out, because structurally, they seem almost identical.
My best guess is because if you look at the phrase "likes to drink", you couldn't grammatically say "The cat likes" without the second part "to drink". So those three words have to be tied together as a predicate.
When you look at "fail to kill", technically you could say The antibiotics fail. The modifier, "to kill", is necessary to explain what it fails at and complete the thought. Remember sometimes we do need the modifiers to fully get the point across. The difference lies in the fact that 'to kill" is required to modify the meaning, but it is still grammatically correct without it. You need to explain what the cat likes to do though, otherwise that sentence is incomplete. So "to drink" can't be a modifier.
I’m having trouble identifying the object. Sometimes there is an object and sometimes there isn’t. What is a good way to know when to identify that. Other than that I’m doing really well in identifying the subject and predicate- verb.
@LeonelaMartinezramirez This might not be perfect but I view the object as the thing in a sentence that the subject is acting on.
So for Q3, Mary (subject) declared (verb) the statement that 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' We could break it down more but to keep it simple, Mary is acting on the whole quote about billboards because she is declaring it.
For Q4, we don't have an object because "the formation" is not acting on anything. It "is triggered" by something, but not impacting it. This might make you think the winds are the subject, but here I use a general rule of thumb that subjects often come earlier in a sentence and usually are before a modifier beginning with "of."
Question 4 might be tricky if you're only working with the information presented by 7Sage. The sentence:
"The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa."
is in the passive voice, which means the subject is receiving the action. Not every passive voice sentence includes the thing performing the action that the subject is receiving, but when it does, that noun or noun phrase is called the agent. Structurally, it feels like an object, but an agent is its own thing, so 7Sage considers that just another modifier.
Let's try another example. Let me know what you think, and point out the agent if you're feeling bold.
The seminal work of proto-existentialist fiction Notes from Underground was written by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
@CollinEsquirol The kernel is not “Antibiotics kill bacteria” because “fail to kill” is a single negative predicate meaning do not kill, and removing that negation would reverse the logical meaning of the sentence.
In question #3 how is the predicate verb "declared" instead of "representing"? How should I determine the difference between which action is the predicate?
because the "who was" indicates that it is a modifier, it's describing Mary Simms to us
but the overall sentence is trying to tell us that Mary Simms declared something
if we take out the part of the sentence "who was representing an outdoor advertising company," the sentence, "At the meeting, Marry Simms declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business'." still makes sense on its own.
however, if we took out "declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business'." the sentence no longer makes sense, it's incomplete.
"At the meeting, Mary Simms, who was representing an outdoor advertising company."
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.
291 comments
why is this neccesary for the lsat ?
Okay so I understand how to identify subjects and predicates but I'm struggling to understand Objects. Can someone help?
@Okknicoleee SAME
@JosieAzar SAMEE
@Okknicoleee Think of the object as receiving (or being directly impacted by) the subject's action. Birds catch worms. Bird is the subject, catch is the action (verb), and worm is the object. It's important to make this distinction because it's the bird doing the catching. It's not the worm that is catching the bird.
A subject of a sentence is the "do-er", the object is the thing that gets "acted on".
Alfred Wegener developed the concept. "Alfred" is the subject, while "concept" is the object. Alfred is the one who is doing, the concept is the thing being acted on. Notice: the concept did NOT develop Alfred Wegener.
These basics are very reassuring.
I'm a little confused why the last one was "the cat likes to drink milk" but this kernel for Q1 wasn't "antibiotics fail to kill the bacteria"
@SavanahHoffstein Is it because "the cat likes" isn't a sentence but "antibiotics fail" is?
This was particularly convoluted
IM SO LOST
Can anyone help me understand Q5 why the stripped down sentence " that there is a relationship" is not an predicate-object? Just like Q3, where 'Billboards are the basis of our business' is an object of "declared," isn't "concluded" the same structure?
In both:
The that-clause completes the verb.
and you can ask: Declared what? Concluded what?
So why is it that for Q5 it's labeled as a modifier?
@Shrimpi I'm not 100% sure but a study concluding can happen with no additional information. It would just mean it ended, though, so not enough context. Declared maybe doesn't work the same way?
#4 got me, I though hurricane would be the S :/
Initially, they asked what a predicate and Noun was. But as you continue and hit "Answer," they start hitting you with things like "subject-noun, Subject-verb, Indirect-object, Direct-object" like huh? I feel like I am getting more confused, and I know I am not alone since there are over 250+ comments as well. Thoughts anyone?
@Ryo He's just fleshing out the different aspects of the previous lessons.
[subject-noun] - they're referring to what noun is the subject of the whole sentence.
[predicate-verb] - what verb is associated with what the subject is doing.
[predicate-object] - nouns that can be part of the predicate and describe what the object is doing.
You're looking for those aspects of the sentence to figure out what these convoluted sentences are saying:
[subject] [predicate].
All the other ["blank" modifies] refer to all the words that build around that subject-predicate relationship and give it more context, as well as what aspect of the relationship they are trying to describe.
lol what da heck
@brandenesrawi I feel ya
It's been tricky at times to distinguish between the predicate object and modifier. For example on Q4 I initially thought the winds were the object but they turned out to be a modifier.
The main pattern that I have recognized, is if the predicate verb is acting on the following object, then it is an predicate object. So in Q2 when Wegener developed the concept, the concept is the object because it is being developed. However in Q4, the winds are actually acting in reverse on the verb. The formation isn't triggering the winds, they are triggered by the winds. That key word by shows me that the following object is modifying the verb. Likewise, on the last skill builder, the physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes. It's easy to think:
physicists = subject
were puzzled = predicate verb
the existence = object,
but the word "by" signifies to me the existence is acting upon them being puzzled, therefore it is a modifier. It is only an object when it is necessary to grammatically complete the sentence, which is always going to be when the verb is acting upon the following object and therefore incomplete without it.
Other key words are the "is" before triggered, and the "were" before puzzled. Those signify it is a complete thought and therefore not reliant on the following word as an object.
Does anyone have any input?
Why is "a relationship" not the object of section 5, but for question three the whole clause starting with "Billboards" is the object?
#2
how does "early in this century" modify developed?
@tporter1 If I understand correctly it is describing the "when" of the development/action and doesn't really comment on the subject. Just like how in Q3 "At the meeting" modifies declared. It is the "where" it was declared/the action happened but doesn't really comment on Mary.
@SeanWatson i get it! thank you!!
How is "fail to kill" not the complete predicate in the first sentence when "likes to drink" was a part of the predicate in the last example?
@ShortBee i thought the same thing
@ShortBee Same, I highlighed fail to kill as the entire predicate.
@ShortBee It took me a long time to figure this out, because structurally, they seem almost identical.
My best guess is because if you look at the phrase "likes to drink", you couldn't grammatically say "The cat likes" without the second part "to drink". So those three words have to be tied together as a predicate.
When you look at "fail to kill", technically you could say The antibiotics fail. The modifier, "to kill", is necessary to explain what it fails at and complete the thought. Remember sometimes we do need the modifiers to fully get the point across. The difference lies in the fact that 'to kill" is required to modify the meaning, but it is still grammatically correct without it. You need to explain what the cat likes to do though, otherwise that sentence is incomplete. So "to drink" can't be a modifier.
@MSouthard This makes so much sense thank you!!
is "triggered" not the type of verb that typically needs an objection to be completed? really confused why it stands alone without an object here
I’m having trouble identifying the object. Sometimes there is an object and sometimes there isn’t. What is a good way to know when to identify that. Other than that I’m doing really well in identifying the subject and predicate- verb.
@LeonelaMartinezramirez This might not be perfect but I view the object as the thing in a sentence that the subject is acting on.
So for Q3, Mary (subject) declared (verb) the statement that 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' We could break it down more but to keep it simple, Mary is acting on the whole quote about billboards because she is declaring it.
For Q4, we don't have an object because "the formation" is not acting on anything. It "is triggered" by something, but not impacting it. This might make you think the winds are the subject, but here I use a general rule of thumb that subjects often come earlier in a sentence and usually are before a modifier beginning with "of."
Question 4 might be tricky if you're only working with the information presented by 7Sage. The sentence:
is in the passive voice, which means the subject is receiving the action. Not every passive voice sentence includes the thing performing the action that the subject is receiving, but when it does, that noun or noun phrase is called the agent. Structurally, it feels like an object, but an agent is its own thing, so 7Sage considers that just another modifier.
Let's try another example. Let me know what you think, and point out the agent if you're feeling bold.
4: why not
Subject: The formation
Predicate-verb: is
Predicate-object: triggered?
4/5 lets go!! I will say I'm still lacking on identifying the object
whoa! I got them all correct in a reasonable time... confidence booster!
I'm confused as to why the kernel for Q1 is not Antibiotics kill bacteria. FAil can modify kill.
@CollinEsquirol The kernel is not “Antibiotics kill bacteria” because “fail to kill” is a single negative predicate meaning do not kill, and removing that negation would reverse the logical meaning of the sentence.
In question #3 how is the predicate verb "declared" instead of "representing"? How should I determine the difference between which action is the predicate?
@ALMarshall
because the "who was" indicates that it is a modifier, it's describing Mary Simms to us
but the overall sentence is trying to tell us that Mary Simms declared something
if we take out the part of the sentence "who was representing an outdoor advertising company," the sentence, "At the meeting, Marry Simms declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business'." still makes sense on its own.
however, if we took out "declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business'." the sentence no longer makes sense, it's incomplete.
"At the meeting, Mary Simms, who was representing an outdoor advertising company."
@sandypickle Thank you!
I think I am not going to get too caught up on the differences between predicate objects and modifiers.