Half the time i think an object is the modifyer and the modifyer is the object.
Personally, it makes more sense to understand the subject of what the sentence is saying rather than the kernal. "Huricanes are triggered by Winds." In terms of saving time and understanding what the arguer is saying, the subject makes more sense than the kernal.
This is what helped me. The kernels [subject, predicate and object] should be a grammatically correct sentence when pulled out from the complex sentence; Ex: Mary Simms declared.
Alfred Wegener developed a concept
The formation is triggered.
Except Here:
[A] study concluded. Even though A is a modifier, I still pulled it from the sentence. I didn't have to change the definite article to make the sentence correct.
I'm finding it really hard to differentiate between predicate-object and modifier. For example in Q3, I identified that the predicate-verb was 'declared' so asked myself modifier questions like where, when, who etc, which led me to think "billboards are the basis of our business" was a modifier. But it's actually an object?? I just feel like it's so confusing! Anyone got any advice? Many thanks.
I finally am starting to understand how to spot the difference between the predicate objects and just modifiers for verbs. If you have to question if the structure falls apart when determining the objects relation to the verb then this is most likely a modifier for the verb.
I have no idea how to distinguish when something is a predicate object or a modifier. I feel like sometimes here it's considered a modifier and other times it's considered a predicate object
I think, on one hand, it is helpful to break down the sentences in this detailed manner, but, on the other hand, I still find it more helpful to get the key words rather than just the core of the sentence. For instance, for "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa," I would mentally recap the sentence as "hurricanes are triggered by winds from Africa," instead of just the core, "The formation is triggered." I think the concrete words give more info than abstract ones, even if the abstarct word is the grammatical core of the sentence. If I recap by extracting the core, then I will need a second step to actually get the gist of the sentence.
I was able to successfully answer all questions - however for question number 4 the subject-noun being "the formation of" is fundamentally less helpful in understanding the kernel of the sentence than "hurricanes". "hurricanes [are] triggered." This would better aid the reader in finding important information. Why is "the formation of" a better subject-noun?
I think there are some inconsistencies in this module. Example: In the question number 4, we didn't say the winds was an object, but on the video we did. I think there are also issues with differentiating objects and modifiers.
after reading everyone's comments-- to clarify on my end-- so basically if something is an OBJECT it must be the focus of action by the subject otherwise it would count as a modifier?
Confused why, in the last lesson, 'likes to drink milk' was considered a predicate but here antibiotics 'fail' and 'to kill' is considered a modifier. Also, wouldn't bacteria be the object and thus part of the predicate? Thanks!
In question 3, "Mary Simms ... declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business,'" the phrase "'Billboards are the basis of our business'" is identified as the object of "declared."
But in question 4, a "study ... concluded that there is a definite relationship between X and Y," the phrase "there is a definite relationship between X and Y" is identified as a modifier of "concluded."
Why? Surely it's not because the word "that" appears in 4 but not 3. Of course, we learned that "that" signals a modifier, but the word "that" could easily be included in 3, e.g., "Mary Simms ... declared [that] 'Billboards are the basis of our business.'"
1
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!
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.
247 comments
I think I am not going to get too caught up on the differences between predicate objects and modifiers.
how is the subject to number 4 not hurricanes
Half the time i think an object is the modifyer and the modifyer is the object.
Personally, it makes more sense to understand the subject of what the sentence is saying rather than the kernal. "Huricanes are triggered by Winds." In terms of saving time and understanding what the arguer is saying, the subject makes more sense than the kernal.
This is what helped me. The kernels [subject, predicate and object] should be a grammatically correct sentence when pulled out from the complex sentence; Ex: Mary Simms declared.
Alfred Wegener developed a concept
The formation is triggered.
Except Here:
[A] study concluded. Even though A is a modifier, I still pulled it from the sentence. I didn't have to change the definite article to make the sentence correct.
I'm finding it really hard to differentiate between predicate-object and modifier. For example in Q3, I identified that the predicate-verb was 'declared' so asked myself modifier questions like where, when, who etc, which led me to think "billboards are the basis of our business" was a modifier. But it's actually an object?? I just feel like it's so confusing! Anyone got any advice? Many thanks.
To everyone who feels stuck keep going just get the basic idea and move on because this stuff is rubbish
I finally am starting to understand how to spot the difference between the predicate objects and just modifiers for verbs. If you have to question if the structure falls apart when determining the objects relation to the verb then this is most likely a modifier for the verb.
I have no idea how to distinguish when something is a predicate object or a modifier. I feel like sometimes here it's considered a modifier and other times it's considered a predicate object
I think, on one hand, it is helpful to break down the sentences in this detailed manner, but, on the other hand, I still find it more helpful to get the key words rather than just the core of the sentence. For instance, for "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa," I would mentally recap the sentence as "hurricanes are triggered by winds from Africa," instead of just the core, "The formation is triggered." I think the concrete words give more info than abstract ones, even if the abstarct word is the grammatical core of the sentence. If I recap by extracting the core, then I will need a second step to actually get the gist of the sentence.
I was able to successfully answer all questions - however for question number 4 the subject-noun being "the formation of" is fundamentally less helpful in understanding the kernel of the sentence than "hurricanes". "hurricanes [are] triggered." This would better aid the reader in finding important information. Why is "the formation of" a better subject-noun?
How is bacteria not an object in Q1?
Antibiotics (subject) fail to kill (verb) (fail to kill what?) bacteria (object)
Very glad that my English teacher was obsessed with grammar in 8th grade. This all comes very naturally.
I'm very confused.
How do you know when something is an object vs when it is a modifier of the predicate verb?
I feel like I'm talking like a caveman.
I hate this
I don't understand...wouldn't bacteria in number one be the predicate-object?
In q4 why isn't hurricanes the main subject? im confused as in why the main subject is there formation
I think there are some inconsistencies in this module. Example: In the question number 4, we didn't say the winds was an object, but on the video we did. I think there are also issues with differentiating objects and modifiers.
3.5/5 😭
for q1: I got the subject and predicate correct, but I put deep wounds as an object, would that still be correct?
after reading everyone's comments-- to clarify on my end-- so basically if something is an OBJECT it must be the focus of action by the subject otherwise it would count as a modifier?
Im confused as to why the object is sometimes separate from the modifier and sometimes a part of it in the explanation
Confused why, in the last lesson, 'likes to drink milk' was considered a predicate but here antibiotics 'fail' and 'to kill' is considered a modifier. Also, wouldn't bacteria be the object and thus part of the predicate? Thanks!
Similar questions to others:
In question 3, "Mary Simms ... declared, 'Billboards are the basis of our business,'" the phrase "'Billboards are the basis of our business'" is identified as the object of "declared."
But in question 4, a "study ... concluded that there is a definite relationship between X and Y," the phrase "there is a definite relationship between X and Y" is identified as a modifier of "concluded."
Why? Surely it's not because the word "that" appears in 4 but not 3. Of course, we learned that "that" signals a modifier, but the word "that" could easily be included in 3, e.g., "Mary Simms ... declared [that] 'Billboards are the basis of our business.'"