This is a sloppy taxonomy if the purpose is a functional classification of grammar. Earlier, Ping distinguishes between the restrictive relative pronoun "that", calling it a modifier, as it "cuts down into the subset", and the demonstrative sentential referential "that". That distinction is useful and follows the function of those separate uses of "that". But here, he seems to think the noun modifying "which" of "Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority stake" is performing a pointing function instead of a modifying function. Certainly, both the restrictive clause "that" and nonrestrictive clause "which" do reference something, but they do it to MODIFY (in this case) the subject. If he wants to identify the functional difference for "that", he should also identify the functional difference for "which". When "which" functions as a strict pointing referential and does not modify the referent, THEN it should be categorized as a referential in this taxonomy. When it DOES modify the referent, it should be categorized as a modifier.
#feedback. at 23 seconds, captions read "as a corp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell." It should read "Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell."
What part of the LSAT is this information going to be applied? Are these lessons about subject, predicate, and referential important for the reading comprehension section? Or is this important for logical reasoning?
When referring to a noun, will the "which" always follow the noun it refers to? Or is it not about proximity in a similar way to the subject and predicate lesson?
In the second usage of "which" (referring to a clause (subject and predicate)), why is the word "which" swapped out with the word "that"? I know the explanation mentions "we can swap "which" out with "that" and expand the sentence in two for clarity.", but is this just for clarity purposes? Why not use "this" instead of "that"? Am I thinking too much into it? Is it only to show that we can expand the sentences in two, or is it a specific rule?
not a question regarding WHICH but, in the sentence : alcohol seriously impairs an operator’s judgment , int the subject : ALCOHOL and predicate : IMPAIRS, rather than predicate being the whole sentence?
Regarding the "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment" example, is it right to say that the referential 'that' is referring to the whole clause: "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment"? It seems to me that this is a claim about the capacity of alcohol to impair judgment, which is not in and of itself that which poses a threat to the team's safety. Rather, the serious impairment of the operator's judgment in itself poses the threat. I appreciate any clarification.
I'm a bit confused by Example 2, where which is said to refer to a subject and predicate. Most of the time, when encountered with a pronoun (or a referential as they're described here), it can be replaced with its referent the and the clause will make sense. I can't replace 'which' with "A pet makes one's time at a retirement home more rewarding," though. "A pet makes one's time at a retirement home more rewarding will be important to more people as the average life span of our population increases" doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that 'which ' is referring something implied by the first sentence, like " a rewarding time at a retirement home". I would appreciate other's input.
When "which" is referring to a noun, it will almost be at the beginning of an embedded clause. An embedded clause is a subordinate clause (subordinate to the main clause) that adds more information/detail to the main clause, usually indicated by commas. An embedded clause is dependent on on the main clause, meaning that by itself, it could not stand as a sentence.
For example:
The LSAT, (insert an embedded clause here, whatever you want to say about the LSAT!), is used to predict the success of law students.
Let's try out a couple:
The LSAT, which has 3 sections, is used to predict law students success.
The LSAT, which some people like and some people dislike, is to used predict the success of law students.
The LSAT, which is administered by the LSAC, is used to predict the success of law students.
Now imagine the amount of times we can input embedded clauses to make a sentence complex, especially by using referential phrases.
The LSAT, which is a online test that requires a stable internet connection and quiet space, is used to predict, which has been a controversial, law student, when they are applying, success.
A couple words on "which" referring to a clause (subject and predicate).
In this sense, I almost see "which" used as a causal indicator.
For example:
Preston has become a lawyer, which has helped the family tremendously.
Preston becoming a lawyer ---caused--> help for the family.
OR
The people of Narnia went to war, which saved the land.
People of Narnia going to war ---cause--> saving the land.
OR
The glamorous lifestyle of the wealthy is overblown, which is unfortunate.
The overblowing of the glamorous lifestyle of the wealthy ---caused--> a unfortunate situation.
Look, this is not as clear cut as causal relationships we have to examine on the LSAT. However, just knowing what a referential phrase is, how to spot it, and even the ability to break it down grammatically is not enough to do well on the LSAT. We have to understand the relationships that grammar conveys, specifically referential phrases. I use the term relationship in a very broad sense. Relationships is the LSAT, the LSAT is relationships.
13
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!
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.
26 comments
Alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment, which in turn poses a threat to the entire team's safety.
Why does "which" not refer to the noun "alcohol", why does it refer to the whole sentence "Alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment"?
This is a sloppy taxonomy if the purpose is a functional classification of grammar. Earlier, Ping distinguishes between the restrictive relative pronoun "that", calling it a modifier, as it "cuts down into the subset", and the demonstrative sentential referential "that". That distinction is useful and follows the function of those separate uses of "that". But here, he seems to think the noun modifying "which" of "Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority stake" is performing a pointing function instead of a modifying function. Certainly, both the restrictive clause "that" and nonrestrictive clause "which" do reference something, but they do it to MODIFY (in this case) the subject. If he wants to identify the functional difference for "that", he should also identify the functional difference for "which". When "which" functions as a strict pointing referential and does not modify the referent, THEN it should be categorized as a referential in this taxonomy. When it DOES modify the referent, it should be categorized as a modifier.
"Which" can be used to refer to nouns or entire referential phrases (which include the subject and predicate).
#feedback. at 23 seconds, captions read "as a corp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell." It should read "Azedcorp, which currently owns a majority stake, has steadfastly refused to sell."
What part of the LSAT is this information going to be applied? Are these lessons about subject, predicate, and referential important for the reading comprehension section? Or is this important for logical reasoning?
When referring to a noun, will the "which" always follow the noun it refers to? Or is it not about proximity in a similar way to the subject and predicate lesson?
It all makes sense, there's just a lot of specifics to remember lol
"which"is often used as a referential. It can refer to a sound or an entire clause.
In the second usage of "which" (referring to a clause (subject and predicate)), why is the word "which" swapped out with the word "that"? I know the explanation mentions "we can swap "which" out with "that" and expand the sentence in two for clarity.", but is this just for clarity purposes? Why not use "this" instead of "that"? Am I thinking too much into it? Is it only to show that we can expand the sentences in two, or is it a specific rule?
Thanks!
How do you know when there are 2 clauses in a sentence? What are the signs?
Lawd its starting to sound like a foreign language. I do understand, need practice tho.
This is a little confusing, but I’m also studying at a really late hour.
not a question regarding WHICH but, in the sentence : alcohol seriously impairs an operator’s judgment , int the subject : ALCOHOL and predicate : IMPAIRS, rather than predicate being the whole sentence?
Regarding the "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment" example, is it right to say that the referential 'that' is referring to the whole clause: "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment"? It seems to me that this is a claim about the capacity of alcohol to impair judgment, which is not in and of itself that which poses a threat to the team's safety. Rather, the serious impairment of the operator's judgment in itself poses the threat. I appreciate any clarification.
I'm a bit confused by Example 2, where which is said to refer to a subject and predicate. Most of the time, when encountered with a pronoun (or a referential as they're described here), it can be replaced with its referent the and the clause will make sense. I can't replace 'which' with "A pet makes one's time at a retirement home more rewarding," though. "A pet makes one's time at a retirement home more rewarding will be important to more people as the average life span of our population increases" doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that 'which ' is referring something implied by the first sentence, like " a rewarding time at a retirement home". I would appreciate other's input.
A couple words on "which" referring to a noun.
When "which" is referring to a noun, it will almost be at the beginning of an embedded clause. An embedded clause is a subordinate clause (subordinate to the main clause) that adds more information/detail to the main clause, usually indicated by commas. An embedded clause is dependent on on the main clause, meaning that by itself, it could not stand as a sentence.
For example:
The LSAT, (insert an embedded clause here, whatever you want to say about the LSAT!), is used to predict the success of law students.
Let's try out a couple:
The LSAT, which has 3 sections, is used to predict law students success.
The LSAT, which some people like and some people dislike, is to used predict the success of law students.
The LSAT, which is administered by the LSAC, is used to predict the success of law students.
Now imagine the amount of times we can input embedded clauses to make a sentence complex, especially by using referential phrases.
The LSAT, which is a online test that requires a stable internet connection and quiet space, is used to predict, which has been a controversial, law student, when they are applying, success.
A couple words on "which" referring to a clause (subject and predicate).
In this sense, I almost see "which" used as a causal indicator.
For example:
Preston has become a lawyer, which has helped the family tremendously.
Preston becoming a lawyer ---caused--> help for the family.
OR
The people of Narnia went to war, which saved the land.
People of Narnia going to war ---cause--> saving the land.
OR
The glamorous lifestyle of the wealthy is overblown, which is unfortunate.
The overblowing of the glamorous lifestyle of the wealthy ---caused--> a unfortunate situation.
Look, this is not as clear cut as causal relationships we have to examine on the LSAT. However, just knowing what a referential phrase is, how to spot it, and even the ability to break it down grammatically is not enough to do well on the LSAT. We have to understand the relationships that grammar conveys, specifically referential phrases. I use the term relationship in a very broad sense. Relationships is the LSAT, the LSAT is relationships.