I'm a little shaky on "is wrong" being a referential. It would still exist in a sentence with the referent "One prominent biologist is wrong about xyz.
The only thing I can latch on to referentials being meaningless without their referent. It is true that "He is wrong" would not mean anything without the statement about what he is wrong about, is that why it counts?
This lesson made me realize that I should probably start back from the beginning and actually be taking notes instead of flagging lessons I find particularly useful
The last example is a bit sloppy. It is not correct to include the phrase "is wrong" in the last example as a negative referential just because it negates the former statement. There is a hidden or implied referential in the sentence ("But he is wrong about that.") where "that" is the referential, and it is not a negative referential. The fact that the content of the predicate is such that the author is negating the previous sentence does not make that predicate referential; instead, the referential is inferred.
This becomes clearer if you remove the first referential: "One prominent biologist, Dr. H, hypothesized that the colors function as camouflage. But Dr. H is wrong." There are no words in these sentences serving grammatically as a referential, although you can imply from context that the thing he is wrong about is the hypothesis.
I think you need to refine this a bit. You're stating that 8th-grade teachers agree that their job is harder than other teachers at the same school. The other teachers being all other teachers except specifically the 8th-grade teachers.
However, in your second sentence, you refer to "others" in general. I see your intent for "others" to mean "all other teachers except specifically the 8th-grade teachers". It, "others," is indeed a negative referential, but it is negative to the 8th-grade teachers. So "others" just means "not 8th-grade teachers". The full-time firefighter working 60-70 hours a week across town isn't an 8th-grade teacher, so he falls under "others". Are you referring to him? What about the police detective? Are you referring to her? I don't think so, but it can't be assumed your reader will totally understand your intent outside of the context of this lesson.
For folks who have taken the exam before or have used other textbooks/LSAT study tools - why do you think this focus on grammar is important? I'm sure there's a bigger picture but I keep wanting to move on to the LR and RC material.
It's not strictly related, you can skip the grammar lessons. The LSAT is also an endurance reading test, the better you are at understanding the english language, the easier it becomes to digest the exam. It's like a basketball player taking ballet, ballet teaches balance, timing etc.
Agreed. I thought it would have to be "One prominent scientist hypothesized that the colors function as camouflage. And his other theories are wrong."
Consequently, "his" is the referential for "one prominent scientist" and "other theories" would be the negative referential for "the colors function as camouflage."
Am I misunderstanding this in my example? I just don't see how wrong is the negative referential...
Is the true referential "is" which is being modified by "wrong"; therefore, referring to the entire hypothesis? Or is "wrong" the referential itself.
If I'm making any sense, is anyone able to explain?
This is a short lesson. However, I think this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in grammar. Seeing a comparison that is made through referential phrases. It reminds of me f group 3 conditional indicators, it is not as intuitive as group 1 and 2. Also, negative referential is something that frequently occurs in answer choices on the RC and LR questions on the harder spectrum
Let's take a step back.
Consider the following example:
Although Michael Jordan won 6 championships, other players have played longer than him.
Okay now imagine all the complex directions we can take this sentence.
Let's make some inferences.
-Michael Jordan did not play the longest.
-There is a player that played longer than someone who won 6 championships.
-When you compare Michael Jordan to some other players, you can find different qualities (such as playing length).
-Some people who have 6 championships have playing careers that differ from others.
The list goes on!
Look, we are talking about sports. The concept of sports is not hard; therefore, the statement above and the accompanying inferences are not hard to comprehend. But, imagine we were talking about 400 B.C. artifacts and comparing them to not 400 B.C. artifacts in regards of the composition of gold that they posses. The LSAT is not going to talk about Michael Jordan, that is too easy of a concept. However, the relationships is the same in regards of using a negative referential phrase. We have something that is (Michael Jordan/400 B.C. artifacts) and something that is not (Not Michael Jordan/Not 400 B.C. artifacts).
Again, knowing grammar is great. Nevertheless, especially in RC, start to see the patterns of relationships that certain grammatical structures, words, and styles express.
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.
32 comments
if you're getting tripped up on this.. don't. It's intuitive grammar, and overthinking this will do more harm than good.
my 6 eyes tell me you're suguru geto. but my soul knows otherwise
I'm a little shaky on "is wrong" being a referential. It would still exist in a sentence with the referent "One prominent biologist is wrong about xyz.
The only thing I can latch on to referentials being meaningless without their referent. It is true that "He is wrong" would not mean anything without the statement about what he is wrong about, is that why it counts?
i feel so dumb .. i dont get a single thing.
This lesson made me realize that I should probably start back from the beginning and actually be taking notes instead of flagging lessons I find particularly useful
The last example is a bit sloppy. It is not correct to include the phrase "is wrong" in the last example as a negative referential just because it negates the former statement. There is a hidden or implied referential in the sentence ("But he is wrong about that.") where "that" is the referential, and it is not a negative referential. The fact that the content of the predicate is such that the author is negating the previous sentence does not make that predicate referential; instead, the referential is inferred.
This becomes clearer if you remove the first referential: "One prominent biologist, Dr. H, hypothesized that the colors function as camouflage. But Dr. H is wrong." There are no words in these sentences serving grammatically as a referential, although you can imply from context that the thing he is wrong about is the hypothesis.
The bugs of the kingdom wanted to smell the flowers, others did not seek to go out and smell the flowers.
The bugs of the kingdom is the referent here (term being referred to)
"Others" is the negative referential
This example is showing that not those bugs of the kingdom wanted to go out and smell the flowers
This will help me negate sentences. The things that make you say, "hmm".
I looked at the heading for this one and got worried. My fears were quelled as I found I understand what was being taught; others may not agree ;)
Was confident going into this section...thanks for the serious case of humbling 7Sage
No way I get negative referentials better than normal. A win is a win I guess.
#Thought I've never felt this dumb before. It makes me feel like I don't even know basic English.
@aidengoldberg1 right there with you haha
This section makes me feel like I don't know English.
i agree when i feel I know it somehow I don't
check me: 8th grade teachers agree that their job is harder than other teachers in the school. Others however, disagree.
Yes, "Others" in the second sentence is a negative referential because it refers to not 8th-grade teachers
I think you need to refine this a bit. You're stating that 8th-grade teachers agree that their job is harder than other teachers at the same school. The other teachers being all other teachers except specifically the 8th-grade teachers.
However, in your second sentence, you refer to "others" in general. I see your intent for "others" to mean "all other teachers except specifically the 8th-grade teachers". It, "others," is indeed a negative referential, but it is negative to the 8th-grade teachers. So "others" just means "not 8th-grade teachers". The full-time firefighter working 60-70 hours a week across town isn't an 8th-grade teacher, so he falls under "others". Are you referring to him? What about the police detective? Are you referring to her? I don't think so, but it can't be assumed your reader will totally understand your intent outside of the context of this lesson.
These referentials are going to be the death of me.. ugh
LOL
@BraveYawningOperation but others would say to the contrary.
For the kittens example, could we say that just "seafood" is the referent vs. "when their lunch smelled of seafood"?
○ Kittens salivated more when their lunch smelled of seafood (referent) than otherwise (negative referential)
Kittens salivated more when their lunch smelled of seafood than not-seafood.
For folks who have taken the exam before or have used other textbooks/LSAT study tools - why do you think this focus on grammar is important? I'm sure there's a bigger picture but I keep wanting to move on to the LR and RC material.
I agree, this is definetly helping my comprehension. Which is highly beneficial and not just for the LSAT.
It's not strictly related, you can skip the grammar lessons. The LSAT is also an endurance reading test, the better you are at understanding the english language, the easier it becomes to digest the exam. It's like a basketball player taking ballet, ballet teaches balance, timing etc.
Example: The wise owl thinks she knows everything there is to know about grammar. She is wrong.
She -- wise owl
Wrong -- wrong to think she knows everything there is to know about grammar
the last examples was pretty confusing to me, idgi
it was to me too
Agreed. I thought it would have to be "One prominent scientist hypothesized that the colors function as camouflage. And his other theories are wrong."
Consequently, "his" is the referential for "one prominent scientist" and "other theories" would be the negative referential for "the colors function as camouflage."
Am I misunderstanding this in my example? I just don't see how wrong is the negative referential...
Is the true referential "is" which is being modified by "wrong"; therefore, referring to the entire hypothesis? Or is "wrong" the referential itself.
If I'm making any sense, is anyone able to explain?
5 Basketball examples:
1. The team lost mores games when they played at home than otherwise.
Translation: The team lost more games when they played at home that when they did not play at home.
2. Player of this generation complain less to the ref when they are winning than otherwise.
Translation: Players of this generation complain less to the ref when they are winning than when they are not winning.
3: Coaches of the NBA receive higher salaries when media attention is favorable for them than other wise.
Translation: Coaches of the NBA receive higher salaries when media attention is favorable for them than when it is not favorable for them.
4. Although players of this generation are more skilled, other players are tougher.
Translation: Although players of this generation are more skilled, players that are not from this generation are tougher.
5. The games in the playoffs is what matters. The other games do not.
Translation: The games in the playoffs is what matters. The non-playoff games do not matter.
You know that?
This is a short lesson. However, I think this is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in grammar. Seeing a comparison that is made through referential phrases. It reminds of me f group 3 conditional indicators, it is not as intuitive as group 1 and 2. Also, negative referential is something that frequently occurs in answer choices on the RC and LR questions on the harder spectrum
Let's take a step back.
Consider the following example:
Although Michael Jordan won 6 championships, other players have played longer than him.
Okay now imagine all the complex directions we can take this sentence.
Let's make some inferences.
-Michael Jordan did not play the longest.
-There is a player that played longer than someone who won 6 championships.
-When you compare Michael Jordan to some other players, you can find different qualities (such as playing length).
-Some people who have 6 championships have playing careers that differ from others.
The list goes on!
Look, we are talking about sports. The concept of sports is not hard; therefore, the statement above and the accompanying inferences are not hard to comprehend. But, imagine we were talking about 400 B.C. artifacts and comparing them to not 400 B.C. artifacts in regards of the composition of gold that they posses. The LSAT is not going to talk about Michael Jordan, that is too easy of a concept. However, the relationships is the same in regards of using a negative referential phrase. We have something that is (Michael Jordan/400 B.C. artifacts) and something that is not (Not Michael Jordan/Not 400 B.C. artifacts).
Again, knowing grammar is great. Nevertheless, especially in RC, start to see the patterns of relationships that certain grammatical structures, words, and styles express.
Thank you for this