@AlenaKane Yup, I made the same mistake. I intentionally did not seperate it because the previous cat example where the cat "likes to drink" (Predicate Verb) wasn't seperated either.
The kernel for the cat example in the previous slide is "the cat likes to drink milk," if I follow that logic, it would be; "what does the cat like to do? drink milk" with milk being the predicate object. If I apply that logic to question 1, it would be; "what can't the antibiotic do? kill the bacteria" with bacteria being the predicate object... but it's not. Why??
Modifiers aren't always non-essential correct? Like sometimes a modifier is necessary to fully understanding the sentence
I think that's what's been throwing me off this entire section. I keep classifying modifiers as distracters 100% of the time, when sometimes they aren't a distraction, and they're necessary to the sentence. And when I do that, I miss the modifiers cuz I place them as essential to understanding the sentence
@kittenWhiskers They want us to differentiate the predicate-verb from its modifiers. We know that “to kill” is modifying “fail.”
Consider how changing the sentence changes the predicate - Antibiotics HURT the bacteria that live in deep wounds - Antibiotics (subject) HURT (verb) bacteria (object). Only by removing the modifier “to kill” does “the bacteria" into an object. It doesn’t make sense if you are a normal person trying to derive the meaning of the sentence, but that is not what it is about, it is more of a puzzle with one logically correct answer.
So to sum it up, make note of verbs modifiying the main verb, and try to look at each passage as a puzzle.
@JashanpreetMalhi Hurricanes” isn’t the subject noun because the sentence is not making a claim directly about hurricanes themselves. The sentence is making a claim about the formation of hurricanes.
So the core sentence is:
‘The formation is triggered.’
Everything else just gives more information about the formation.
Also, “that threaten the United States mainland” is modifying hurricanes, not functioning as the main predicate. It’s describing which hurricanes we’re talking about.
So:
subject noun = formation
predicate verb = is triggered
The rest are modifiers giving more details :)) hope it helps, i didnt understand it last year so... progress will be made sooner for you!
I know I'm late to this but I'm going to give this my best shot, as I'm also trying to wrap my head around some of these examples. The way I see it, is that the core sentence should be understandable, in that there is a claim being made, once all of the modifiers are removed. In question 2, for example, the subject is Alfred Wegener and the verb is developed. If the rest of the sentence (i.e., "the concept of continental drift") were a modifier than the core sentence would be "Alfred Wegener developed" and that doesn't make sense - what did he develop? He developed a concept (object). The same can be said about question 3. Mary Simms is the subject and declared is the verb. If we stated that the core sentence was "Mary Simms declared" we would be left asking what Mary declared, which was that "billboards are the basis of our business."
This thought process doesn't work for every sentence, as some sentences do not contain an object. But in those examples, despite not having an object, the core sentence still makes sense (i.e., a claim is being made).
@SYM I have it as "fail to kill" because I see the whole thing as the verb. But technically "fail is the (finite) verb. "To kill" is the infinitive modifier for fail.
@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.
318 comments
2/5 bad..
Yay I got most of this right. I just didn’t separate “fail to kill” into “fail” and “to kill” as a modifier of fail.
@AlenaKane Yup, I made the same mistake. I intentionally did not seperate it because the previous cat example where the cat "likes to drink" (Predicate Verb) wasn't seperated either.
The kernel for the cat example in the previous slide is "the cat likes to drink milk," if I follow that logic, it would be; "what does the cat like to do? drink milk" with milk being the predicate object. If I apply that logic to question 1, it would be; "what can't the antibiotic do? kill the bacteria" with bacteria being the predicate object... but it's not. Why??
I don't really understand why "the formation" isn't a verb. Formation = to form, which is an action.
@JordanCheng180 Formation is the noun version of "to form."
Modifiers aren't always non-essential correct? Like sometimes a modifier is necessary to fully understanding the sentence
I think that's what's been throwing me off this entire section. I keep classifying modifiers as distracters 100% of the time, when sometimes they aren't a distraction, and they're necessary to the sentence. And when I do that, I miss the modifiers cuz I place them as essential to understanding the sentence
5/5 this is really challenging but I think re-reading is helping me, and talking to myself about the questions has really helped.
It also helps when you talk it out like the person in the video does.
I can't tell if this is helping me out or getting me more stressed lol
Just a thought... can we technically consider the predicate- object also as a modifier?
Q3. Kernal could be "Mary Simms declared"
Object is "Billboards are the basis of our business" but...
can't we ask that as a "what" did she declare? In other words what we would ask ourselves when looking for modifiers
5/5. re-reading is your friend (and also changing the tenses)
For question 1, shouldn't it be like this?
Subject: antibiotics
Predicate-verb: fail to kill
Predicate-object: the bacteria
@kittenWhiskers They want us to differentiate the predicate-verb from its modifiers. We know that “to kill” is modifying “fail.”
Consider how changing the sentence changes the predicate - Antibiotics HURT the bacteria that live in deep wounds - Antibiotics (subject) HURT (verb) bacteria (object). Only by removing the modifier “to kill” does “the bacteria" into an object. It doesn’t make sense if you are a normal person trying to derive the meaning of the sentence, but that is not what it is about, it is more of a puzzle with one logically correct answer.
So to sum it up, make note of verbs modifiying the main verb, and try to look at each passage as a puzzle.
im cooked
@KeiraSinger You got this :) like 7sage man is saying, break them into chunks and drill!
Question 4: Why isn't the subject noun hurricanes and the predicate-verb threaten.
@JashanpreetMalhi Hurricanes” isn’t the subject noun because the sentence is not making a claim directly about hurricanes themselves. The sentence is making a claim about the formation of hurricanes.
So the core sentence is:
‘The formation is triggered.’
Everything else just gives more information about the formation.
Also, “that threaten the United States mainland” is modifying hurricanes, not functioning as the main predicate. It’s describing which hurricanes we’re talking about.
So:
subject noun = formation
predicate verb = is triggered
The rest are modifiers giving more details :)) hope it helps, i didnt understand it last year so... progress will be made sooner for you!
Question 2: I thought "the concept" modified developed, rather than being an object
Similarly, for Q3: I thought "billboards are the basis of our business" modified declared.
@JashanpreetMalhi
I know I'm late to this but I'm going to give this my best shot, as I'm also trying to wrap my head around some of these examples. The way I see it, is that the core sentence should be understandable, in that there is a claim being made, once all of the modifiers are removed. In question 2, for example, the subject is Alfred Wegener and the verb is developed. If the rest of the sentence (i.e., "the concept of continental drift") were a modifier than the core sentence would be "Alfred Wegener developed" and that doesn't make sense - what did he develop? He developed a concept (object). The same can be said about question 3. Mary Simms is the subject and declared is the verb. If we stated that the core sentence was "Mary Simms declared" we would be left asking what Mary declared, which was that "billboards are the basis of our business."
This thought process doesn't work for every sentence, as some sentences do not contain an object. But in those examples, despite not having an object, the core sentence still makes sense (i.e., a claim is being made).
what
this doesn't make any sense >_<
Why is it that some sentences identify a predicate object and some do not?
how isnt bacteria in question 1 the object?
Hey :) For question 1 i thought the predicate- verb would be kill and the modifier would be fail {fail to kill} ?
@SYM I agree, and the video seems to confirm this. I suspect it's an inconsistency in the written answer.
@PowerUp_Tutoring Maybe so.. thanks for the confirmation! Happy studying :)
@SYM I have it as "fail to kill" because I see the whole thing as the verb. But technically "fail is the (finite) verb. "To kill" is the infinitive modifier for fail.
why is this neccesary for the lsat ?
@YehudaNissani After doing other test prep course, I do believe this can really help in the RC passages
Okay so I understand how to identify subjects and predicates but I'm struggling to understand Objects. Can someone help?
@Okknicoleee SAME
@paligrrl 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