For me the best way that I understood this is that the referential is the phrase that is in place for another phrase, the referent is the phrase that is being referred to. How do you know something is the a referential? You know it is a referential if it is a very broad term that is vague. You need the referent to understand what this broad and vague term is talking about.
The easiest way I could describe referential words/phrases would be: referentials replace specific terms with vague terms; hence you have to refer to the previous or upcoming sentence(s) to understand what they are referring to...
P.S.: Bonus points if you catch the referential ;).
I originally had confusion with sentence 2, but I realized that I was wrong, and here's my explanation! [For those who find it useful :)]
I thought that "its support base" was referring to society. BUT society itself is modified by "authoritarian regime"
Just think of the kernel: A pointcame. "Point" is the subject, came is the predicate. "Point" is modified by turning (turning point), and further modified by "in the transition to democracy". So in total:
A turningpointin the transition to democracy ...
Dealing with the predicate now came,
"camewhen privileged people in SOCIETY who had been part of its support base realized that the AUTHORITARIAN REGIME is dispensable."
If you think society is the referent that its support base is referring to, just think about what type of society it is talking about. This passage is talking about the point where society changed from authoritarianism to democracy. So the starting point is authoritarian regime/society.
TLDR; its support base is referring to authoritarian regime society. BUT it doesn't really matter, as long as you get the kernel of the sentence, the modifiers are just details.
How can you tell whether or not a referential is identifying a thing earlier or later in the sentence? Sentence 2 example really tripped me up because i thought 'its support base" was referring to 'democracy' and not 'the authoritarian regime'
I agree with many others, these examples tripped me up and didn't really seem to mesh with the starting example? Would love another addition to this that goes further into this idea bc you've lost me.
A turning point in the transition to democracy came when privileged people in society who had been part of its support base realized that the authoritarian regime is indispensable.
What is the article about?
Subject: Democracy
What about democracy?
Its supporters realized that the authoritarian regime is dispensable.
How long are you all studying or will have studied before taking the LSAT? I am not advancing as fast as I would want, and I am critical of myself due to studying over 4 months and scoring barely in the 150s.
To people here suggesting the referent in #2 might be "democracy," note that the noun there is "transition" and "to democracy" is the modifier. (That said, I do think you can make a reasonable case that "its support base" does in fact refer to "transition to democracy")
I struggled a bit with identifying a referential and a referent from the information provided in this lecture, so I did a separate exercise to better understand how to bridge the gap between comprehending what a referential and referent is in theory and identifying them in sentences/paragraphs in practice (without just recognizing which is which to explain the definition). Posting it here in case it helps someone else or if anyone has feedback for me!
My goal in this exercise was how to:
1. Identify a referential and a referent in a set of claims.
2. Correctly identify their relationship to one another and understand why/how they correlate.
3. Learn how to keep track of them on dense passages on various topics that encompass cluster sentences.
I utilized the example in this lecture: Botanists at the Ben Gurion University recently discovered plants that can extract phosphorus from the sand covering its leaves. They are conducting experiments to better understand the mechanism which enables such extractions.
First, I identified repetitive variables. (if referentials are similar in makeup to pronouns, you can think of these variables as the noun). The repetitive variables I came across were 1. BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY (the lecture on modifiers helped me on this, the entire subset is BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY, not just BOTANISTS), 2. PLANTS, 3. EXTRACTIONS (At first, “plants that extract phosphorus from the sand covering its leaves” seemed like an entire variable, especially following the train of thought of modifiers, but by reading “the mechanism which enables such extractions”, I could tell from the information provided that EXTRACTIONS was its own separate entity. (That could potentially come up on longer passages on the test)
Next, I focused on identifying which is the referential and its correlating referent by identifying their relationship and separating the two in chronological order. I got curious about words that had no definitive referent. [THEY are conducting - who is they?] [ITS leaves - whose leaves?] [SUCH extraction - what kind of extraction are we talking about?] I read the sentence emphasizing chronological order (remembering that many referents are mentioned first and the referential follows). It helped me to identify subject, predicate, nouns, verbs, and modified subsets. I asked myself, what’s “ITS” leaves? In remembering that many referents are mentioned prior to its referential, I knew that ITS referred to plants.
Lastly, I utilized contextual information. I recalled the definition of “pointing towards” something else, and utilized the contextual information based on chronological order to see if it made sense (aka if those referentials correctly correlated to their referents) if they were to be swapped. I kept in mind the identifiable variables of 1. BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY, 2. PLANTS, 3. EXTRACTIONS. In this example, I asked myself who are “THEY”? There were 3 variables that were previously mentioned in the first sentence alone. I know that on the actual test, that one sentence could be preceded by multiple paragraphs with multiple variables and modifiers. So I swapped out “THEY” with the different variables. If “THEY” are conducting experiments, it does not make sense for PLANTS to conduct experiments or for EXTRACTIONS to conduct experiments, so it was clear to me that THEY referred to BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY (Again, the entire modified subset)
By applying previous lessons (Nouns, Verbs, Subject, Predicate, Modifiers/Subset) and identifying them in this sentence, I was able to come up with this 3-step process of identifying the relationship between referential and referent, and therefore, identifying which is which.
I hope this helps someone! I’m also happy to receive any feedback if my own thought process is flawed or just further discuss referentials.
Would love more-in depth explanation on how to identify a referential and it's corresponding referent, and how to prove that those two belong together. Also if entire phrases can be a referential/referent - where is the cut-off and how do you know? I definitely understand the definition (what a referential is and that it exists to point towards a referent) but understanding that definition vs. having clear tactics/strategies on how to identify them and correlate them together isn't as clear for me. I understand why offering a list of pronouns isn't advisable, but I'd more so appreciate an explanation of how to train that intuitive muscle of recognizing referentials and their referents. #feedback
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!
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.
82 comments
For me the best way that I understood this is that the referential is the phrase that is in place for another phrase, the referent is the phrase that is being referred to. How do you know something is the a referential? You know it is a referential if it is a very broad term that is vague. You need the referent to understand what this broad and vague term is talking about.
The easiest way I could describe referential words/phrases would be: referentials replace specific terms with vague terms; hence you have to refer to the previous or upcoming sentence(s) to understand what they are referring to...
P.S.: Bonus points if you catch the referential ;).
I went back to rewatch these a couple times. It makes all the difference. I feel like it helped me master it!
Makes sense! Yay!
I am now so confused this is not clicking for me at all rn
I originally had confusion with sentence 2, but I realized that I was wrong, and here's my explanation! [For those who find it useful :)]
I thought that "its support base" was referring to society. BUT society itself is modified by "authoritarian regime"
Just think of the kernel: A point came. "Point" is the subject, came is the predicate. "Point" is modified by turning (turning point), and further modified by "in the transition to democracy". So in total:
A turning point in the transition to democracy ...
Dealing with the predicate now came,
"came when privileged people in SOCIETY who had been part of its support base realized that the AUTHORITARIAN REGIME is dispensable."
If you think society is the referent that its support base is referring to, just think about what type of society it is talking about. This passage is talking about the point where society changed from authoritarianism to democracy. So the starting point is authoritarian regime/society.
TLDR; its support base is referring to authoritarian
regimesociety. BUT it doesn't really matter, as long as you get the kernel of the sentence, the modifiers are just details.You got this!
Feel like I went from thinking this was a no brainer to now being confused/overthinking minor details of simple sentences...
How can you tell whether or not a referential is identifying a thing earlier or later in the sentence? Sentence 2 example really tripped me up because i thought 'its support base" was referring to 'democracy' and not 'the authoritarian regime'
I think I am ready to getting a lobotomy with this stuff. Thank God for Bourgon! :-)
I agree with many others, these examples tripped me up and didn't really seem to mesh with the starting example? Would love another addition to this that goes further into this idea bc you've lost me.
ngl these examples tripped me up
Example (i will try my best) -
The yellow frog eats lots of green bugs when it becomes thirsty in the spring. That behavior is common amongst those types of amphibians.
In this sentence the reference is, "That behavior," and it refers to, "eats lots of green bugs in the spring"
And , "those types of amphibians," refers to "yellow frogs,"
Good example?
Can't "its support base" also be a referential to democracy?
what are diff from modifiers and referentials ?
A turning point in the transition to democracy came when privileged people in society who had been part of its support base realized that the authoritarian regime is indispensable.
What is the article about?
Subject: Democracy
What about democracy?
Its supporters realized that the authoritarian regime is dispensable.
Verb: Realized.
What did they realize?
authoritarian regime is indispensable.
Object: Authoritarian regime
Example #2.
Why isnt "its" refering to democracy?
what's the relation between referentials and demonstrative pronouns? are they the same?
we need 720p and 360p option, these videos very big, difficult to load in given time. just sit looking at spinning wheel not helpful.
For #2, wouldn't "who" also relate to privileged people?
I don't know why I am finding this so challenging :')
How long are you all studying or will have studied before taking the LSAT? I am not advancing as fast as I would want, and I am critical of myself due to studying over 4 months and scoring barely in the 150s.
Actual grammatical error:
botanists discovered PLANTS that can ...from ITS leaves.
Should be THEIR leaves.
To people here suggesting the referent in #2 might be "democracy," note that the noun there is "transition" and "to democracy" is the modifier. (That said, I do think you can make a reasonable case that "its support base" does in fact refer to "transition to democracy")
I struggled a bit with identifying a referential and a referent from the information provided in this lecture, so I did a separate exercise to better understand how to bridge the gap between comprehending what a referential and referent is in theory and identifying them in sentences/paragraphs in practice (without just recognizing which is which to explain the definition). Posting it here in case it helps someone else or if anyone has feedback for me!
My goal in this exercise was how to:
1. Identify a referential and a referent in a set of claims.
2. Correctly identify their relationship to one another and understand why/how they correlate.
3. Learn how to keep track of them on dense passages on various topics that encompass cluster sentences.
I utilized the example in this lecture: Botanists at the Ben Gurion University recently discovered plants that can extract phosphorus from the sand covering its leaves. They are conducting experiments to better understand the mechanism which enables such extractions.
First, I identified repetitive variables. (if referentials are similar in makeup to pronouns, you can think of these variables as the noun). The repetitive variables I came across were 1. BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY (the lecture on modifiers helped me on this, the entire subset is BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY, not just BOTANISTS), 2. PLANTS, 3. EXTRACTIONS (At first, “plants that extract phosphorus from the sand covering its leaves” seemed like an entire variable, especially following the train of thought of modifiers, but by reading “the mechanism which enables such extractions”, I could tell from the information provided that EXTRACTIONS was its own separate entity. (That could potentially come up on longer passages on the test)
Next, I focused on identifying which is the referential and its correlating referent by identifying their relationship and separating the two in chronological order. I got curious about words that had no definitive referent. [THEY are conducting - who is they?] [ITS leaves - whose leaves?] [SUCH extraction - what kind of extraction are we talking about?] I read the sentence emphasizing chronological order (remembering that many referents are mentioned first and the referential follows). It helped me to identify subject, predicate, nouns, verbs, and modified subsets. I asked myself, what’s “ITS” leaves? In remembering that many referents are mentioned prior to its referential, I knew that ITS referred to plants.
Lastly, I utilized contextual information. I recalled the definition of “pointing towards” something else, and utilized the contextual information based on chronological order to see if it made sense (aka if those referentials correctly correlated to their referents) if they were to be swapped. I kept in mind the identifiable variables of 1. BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY, 2. PLANTS, 3. EXTRACTIONS. In this example, I asked myself who are “THEY”? There were 3 variables that were previously mentioned in the first sentence alone. I know that on the actual test, that one sentence could be preceded by multiple paragraphs with multiple variables and modifiers. So I swapped out “THEY” with the different variables. If “THEY” are conducting experiments, it does not make sense for PLANTS to conduct experiments or for EXTRACTIONS to conduct experiments, so it was clear to me that THEY referred to BOTANISTS AT THE BEN GURION UNIVERSITY (Again, the entire modified subset)
By applying previous lessons (Nouns, Verbs, Subject, Predicate, Modifiers/Subset) and identifying them in this sentence, I was able to come up with this 3-step process of identifying the relationship between referential and referent, and therefore, identifying which is which.
I hope this helps someone! I’m also happy to receive any feedback if my own thought process is flawed or just further discuss referentials.
Would love more-in depth explanation on how to identify a referential and it's corresponding referent, and how to prove that those two belong together. Also if entire phrases can be a referential/referent - where is the cut-off and how do you know? I definitely understand the definition (what a referential is and that it exists to point towards a referent) but understanding that definition vs. having clear tactics/strategies on how to identify them and correlate them together isn't as clear for me. I understand why offering a list of pronouns isn't advisable, but I'd more so appreciate an explanation of how to train that intuitive muscle of recognizing referentials and their referents. #feedback