@hataie This might not be super helpful, but when you try replacing the referential with the referent, in this case it would be "The most successful novels have been the novels that deliver etc etc" which just sounds more natural than saying "The most successful novels have been the successful novels that deliver etc etc" which sounds a little redundant. It's not a technical way to approach understanding the specific phrase that is being referred to, but I think intuitively it makes a little more sense to me if the referent is just "novels." I hope that helps a little!
@hataie I don't even think it's "wrong" either way to think of it as "the most successful novels" or just "novels". This sort of sentence defines itself -- you could essentially re-write the sentence as: "The most successful novels have narrative suspense and character development." But the LSAT is obnoxious and will write a sentence extra strangely just to be annoying.
@KyleYin I think that's exactly what it is doing! It is giving additional information about the noun (magpies) but the sentence structure also meant that it is referring back to the clause before it. Here, the entire clause attached to which is modifying "magpies", but only the word which is a referential that means "magpies" it is the vehicle through which the rest of the clause gets to modify!
@BrooklynHope I was wondering that... I think they might've been trying to refer to the general public (people who read editorials) when they said 'everyone'. Not every citizen is inherently a voter. Thats my best guess !
@KallanKlaes Right, I read "everyone" as meaning everyone in the world -- this includes voters and non-voters. So, in effect, "everyone" covers the voters mentioned earlier. It doesn't refer to the voters, but it does say something that applies to them.
Did anyone else think "otherwise" is a negative referential towards those in favor of parliament's plan when it came to question 2? I guess it's the same thing as the belief that the president clearly (did not) act in the best interests of the nation.
Got a little confused on question 2 on how "acted" is referential, but I boiled it down to this:
“Acted” and “this decision” both refer back to the single action already described — rejecting the plan proposed by parliament — with “acted” evaluating that action and “this decision” serving as a shorthand label (and more obvious referential) for it. "Acted" does not introduce a new action, but instead just refers (!!!) to rejecting the plan.
Is it not ambiguous in question four, whether "them" refers to the attacks or the editorialists?
Or since the second part continues on about the attacks (ending), we should assume "them" refers to that since nothing further is said about editorialists?
"So such wounds is a reference to deep wounds free of bacteria." (0:50 mark in the video) is a false statement. "Such wounds" refers to "deep wounds".
If we swap out the referential in the second sentence by the referent as suggested in the video, the resulting sentence will make no sense: "Even strong antibiotics failed to kill the bacteria that live in deep wounds free of bacteria."
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day...
In Question 4, is it weird to understand "them" as the politicians..... am I that bad at understanding the context...
@Daisy228 the preceding clause of "many editorialists criticize these attacks" should indicate that the author is still talking about the "attacks" rather than the politicians when stating "voters pay them scant attention".
Why is it that in Q.4 "Everyone" isn't considered a referential? Wouldn't you need the previous context to understand who "Everyone" is as it is an exaggeration... or am I thinking about it too deeply? This is far from intuitive for me. Thank you 7Sage
@ilovecats170+ I interpret "everyone" as meaning "everyone" -- it's not referring to "most voters." It's telling us something about every single person.
I'm finding it really helpful to skip the first sentence; it helps me catch all the referentials quicker when I have no context.
NOTE: The author states that although rare, sometimes, the referentials come before the referents. So the above method may not work, but it should mostly always work.
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.
124 comments
In Question 4, could "everyone" be a referential and if so, would it refer to just the voters, or all three parties?
@ReganWilliams It sounds plausible.
It could refer to Politicians, Editorialists, and Voters.
But, I'll say it most likely refers to Editorialists and Voters, given these are the ones who acted on "politicians' personal attacks".
Why, you may ask.
I don't know, I have to say.
It just one angle.
In Question 5, why "those" refer only to "novels" but not "the most successful novels"?
@hataie This might not be super helpful, but when you try replacing the referential with the referent, in this case it would be "The most successful novels have been the novels that deliver etc etc" which just sounds more natural than saying "The most successful novels have been the successful novels that deliver etc etc" which sounds a little redundant. It's not a technical way to approach understanding the specific phrase that is being referred to, but I think intuitively it makes a little more sense to me if the referent is just "novels." I hope that helps a little!
@hataie I don't even think it's "wrong" either way to think of it as "the most successful novels" or just "novels". This sort of sentence defines itself -- you could essentially re-write the sentence as: "The most successful novels have narrative suspense and character development." But the LSAT is obnoxious and will write a sentence extra strangely just to be annoying.
@AnandChoudhary Thank you! Replacing it with "novels", It makes sense now.
@ZealousAltruisticMode Exactly! there is a lot of manipulation that I personally didn't sign up for lols
In Q3 I had:
"has decreased" & "this decrease" refers to "population of songbirds"
"has decreased" is not in the answer. Is it because has decreased is a modifier and not a referent?
"which" refers to "magpies"
I didn't include, "the same period" refers to "recent years" but I noticed it after reading it again.
Number two is using the verb "acted" as a referential? Feels weird, but I understand the reasoning
In Q2 - isn't 'the plan' referring to 'reform the electoral process'? Idk why but I didn't think of 'acted' being the referring word here.
Q4 is tricky because couldn't 'them' also refer to the editorialists' criticisms?
In q3, can which be interpreted as a modifier? Is is a little bit confusing about a modifier and a referential, is there an overlap?
@KyleYin I think that's exactly what it is doing! It is giving additional information about the noun (magpies) but the sentence structure also meant that it is referring back to the clause before it. Here, the entire clause attached to which is modifying "magpies", but only the word which is a referential that means "magpies" it is the vehicle through which the rest of the clause gets to modify!
@SavanahHoffstein thanks！
number 2 is so odd lol
slowly getting better and already feeling more confident!
I did better on this than I thought I would. I feel like I am slowly getting better.
In question 4 isn't everyone a referential for voters?
@BrooklynHope I was wondering that... I think they might've been trying to refer to the general public (people who read editorials) when they said 'everyone'. Not every citizen is inherently a voter. Thats my best guess !
@KallanKlaes Right, I read "everyone" as meaning everyone in the world -- this includes voters and non-voters. So, in effect, "everyone" covers the voters mentioned earlier. It doesn't refer to the voters, but it does say something that applies to them.
These are frying me... anyone else?
@Estefany same
@Estefany Making my brain work, that's for sure
@Estefany My issue is my brain is automatically comprehending what's being said so breaking it down this way has my head spinning.
Did anyone else think "otherwise" is a negative referential towards those in favor of parliament's plan when it came to question 2? I guess it's the same thing as the belief that the president clearly (did not) act in the best interests of the nation.
Got a little confused on question 2 on how "acted" is referential, but I boiled it down to this:
“Acted” and “this decision” both refer back to the single action already described — rejecting the plan proposed by parliament — with “acted” evaluating that action and “this decision” serving as a shorthand label (and more obvious referential) for it. "Acted" does not introduce a new action, but instead just refers (!!!) to rejecting the plan.
For question 2 the last sentence- “should remember that the president made ‘this’ decision knowing…”. Isn’t “this” also a referent ?
Is it not ambiguous in question four, whether "them" refers to the attacks or the editorialists?
Or since the second part continues on about the attacks (ending), we should assume "them" refers to that since nothing further is said about editorialists?
"So such wounds is a reference to deep wounds free of bacteria." (0:50 mark in the video) is a false statement. "Such wounds" refers to "deep wounds".
If we swap out the referential in the second sentence by the referent as suggested in the video, the resulting sentence will make no sense: "Even strong antibiotics failed to kill the bacteria that live in deep wounds free of bacteria."
@gelijah Thanks for catching! We'll fix this.
for q5 is "therefore" a referential to the phrase before it ("Rae's newest work excels in both")? if not, can someone plsss explain?
it's a good day to be an English major
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day...
In Question 4, is it weird to understand "them" as the politicians..... am I that bad at understanding the context...
@Daisy228 the preceding clause of "many editorialists criticize these attacks" should indicate that the author is still talking about the "attacks" rather than the politicians when stating "voters pay them scant attention".
Was struggling with the concept at first but it clicked for me with the second skill builder. It's kind of intuitive in my opinion.
I seem to only find one referential but miss all the rest. I am deeply overthinking these sentences now that things are spicing up
Not sure why this is the hardest skill builder i've come accross
@DanielleRealubit I feel like i dont understand english at all in these recent skill builders
@BrandonMayer I read it and I'm like "what's the square root" HAHA oh my, thats how confused I was
I'm having such a hard time understanding referentials. I really can't seem to point them out.
@AyaniZ Same
Why is it that in Q.4 "Everyone" isn't considered a referential? Wouldn't you need the previous context to understand who "Everyone" is as it is an exaggeration... or am I thinking about it too deeply? This is far from intuitive for me. Thank you 7Sage
@ilovecats170+ I interpret "everyone" as meaning "everyone" -- it's not referring to "most voters." It's telling us something about every single person.
I'm finding it really helpful to skip the first sentence; it helps me catch all the referentials quicker when I have no context.
NOTE: The author states that although rare, sometimes, the referentials come before the referents. So the above method may not work, but it should mostly always work.
@QarimatOgunneye great tip, thx