#feedback It would be really nice if we'd be able to bold or highlight within these exercises to make it easier to directly differentiate / highlight as we do them (before checking the answers)
as many have stated, this lesson is a perfect example of how something we do subconsciously becomes difficult once we are made aware of it and have to practice it
I'm still unsatisfied with the explanation for question 4. I still think there is a strong argument that "them" refers to the editorialists. In my reading, voters pay the editorialists scant attention in their criticism of personal attacks because the voters know such attacks will end after Election Day. That final sentence still could support a reading of the sentence where "them" refers to editorialists.
Because editorialists is the subject of the preceding clause (many editorialists criticize these attacks), that draws our attention to editorialists and makes it feel more like editorialists is what "them" refers to.
Same here, and I am bothered by it as it really changes the meaning of the sentence. Why does them not refer to editorialist? Ok it looks like we can know this from the context of the next sentence.
Here's what I think: Because we start with a dependent clause ("when politicians resort to personal attacks"), our attention is drawn to "personal attacks". In the following independent clause ("many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention") the two subjects "many editorialists" and "most voters" occupy an equal position, which means "personal attacks" from the dependent clause carries over and applies to both.
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.
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.
I agree with other commenters in that Question 4 seems grammatically ambiguous. Specifically, "them" in the phrase "most voters pay them scant attention" could refer to many editorialists. Thus, the sentence would imply that voters ignore the "many editorialists" who criticize "personal attacks."
@LaurinU If you're anything like me, you are subconsciously filling in the gaps. I believe that this exercise is helping you train that muscle, so it's probably fine.
If you completely understood the sentence but missed calling out an explicit referential, you're doing part of the exercise correctly in your subconscious.
Q1 was a repetition from the previous skill builder, but it had a different answer. The previous skill builder said that "it" in the first sentence was a referential. Why is that not correct now?
@itsdorinlee I thought this too. After asking ChatGPT to clarify, it said that "it" would not be a referent in this case as it is simply a filler to help with the structure of the sentence. It is not used to refer to a noun. Being completely honest, I'm very confused as well.
@joycetheok Unsure if this is still a topic of concern but I'm leaving this below in case it can be of help to you or anyone else who had a similar approach to this question.
I think you determine that 'them' refers to 'personal attacks' by using the 'but' in the middle of the sentence. 'Personal attacks' is established as the focus of the sentence before the comma and then you are provided two different opinions on the them (the editorialists and voters).
A similar example would be: My dad made milk tea, I like milk tea but my brother does not.
The 'but' is essentially introducing an opposing perspective on the established topic.
In Q4, the statement "When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention."
When I looked at the word 'them', my first thought was that it referred to editorialists, not personal attacks. Does the referential always refer to a concept within the subject of the sentence, if not, how would I better draw this linkage?
My after-the-fact justification was that the "everyone" in the following clause must have been referring to the voters (and the editorialists). In that context, the subject of the argument remains the 'such attacks' rather than whatever the editorialists are saying. Still, the extra context they eliminated from beyond the ellipsis would've been helpful for making that determination.
160 comments
Some referentials are so obvious that my brains skips over them.
#feedback It would be really nice if we'd be able to bold or highlight within these exercises to make it easier to directly differentiate / highlight as we do them (before checking the answers)
@michelleamourr2 agree!
as many have stated, this lesson is a perfect example of how something we do subconsciously becomes difficult once we are made aware of it and have to practice it
I agree!
Was thinking of that.
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.
i feel like i already understood all of this beforehand, but now i feel like im confused about it?
struggled with this....didnt realize how many referential there are!
I'm still unsatisfied with the explanation for question 4. I still think there is a strong argument that "them" refers to the editorialists. In my reading, voters pay the editorialists scant attention in their criticism of personal attacks because the voters know such attacks will end after Election Day. That final sentence still could support a reading of the sentence where "them" refers to editorialists.
Because editorialists is the subject of the preceding clause (many editorialists criticize these attacks), that draws our attention to editorialists and makes it feel more like editorialists is what "them" refers to.
came here looking for this
I agree with this. I made the same error.
Same here, and I am bothered by it as it really changes the meaning of the sentence. Why does them not refer to editorialist? Ok it looks like we can know this from the context of the next sentence.
I stumbled on this too!
Here's what I think: Because we start with a dependent clause ("when politicians resort to personal attacks"), our attention is drawn to "personal attacks". In the following independent clause ("many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention") the two subjects "many editorialists" and "most voters" occupy an equal position, which means "personal attacks" from the dependent clause carries over and applies to both.
overall: just make sure you read the text word for word and you'll get through it.
WE are getting locked in now
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.
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
I agree with other commenters in that Question 4 seems grammatically ambiguous. Specifically, "them" in the phrase "most voters pay them scant attention" could refer to many editorialists. Thus, the sentence would imply that voters ignore the "many editorialists" who criticize "personal attacks."
i was thinking the same thing
I'm having such a hard time understanding referentials. I really can't seem to point them out.
@AyaniZ Same
For some reason this just isn't clicking in my brain like I would like it to.
i wouldn't stress it- a lot of this stuff, you likely understand intuitively, and now that its being explicated, you are just overthinking it
literally same. this is de-motivating.
#feedback Magpies are pronounced Mag (like magazine) pies (like the dessert).
Thank you for the tips!
Thank you for clarifying because that's how I read it. #feedback
I feel like I always get majority but miss a couple in each phrase, does anybody have any tips on that?
@LaurinU If you're anything like me, you are subconsciously filling in the gaps. I believe that this exercise is helping you train that muscle, so it's probably fine.
If you completely understood the sentence but missed calling out an explicit referential, you're doing part of the exercise correctly in your subconscious.
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
Q1 was a repetition from the previous skill builder, but it had a different answer. The previous skill builder said that "it" in the first sentence was a referential. Why is that not correct now?
@OliviaPare yes, thank you! i had the same question. i think it's just a mistake, because it's almost the exact same, no?
None of this helps with the LSAT practice question next up by the way.
@Aidan.lang lol
I noticed that question 1 is the same sentence as the previous lesson, but the answers are different. It does not add "It" as a referential. Why?
@itsdorinlee I noticed this too, however, the video does mention "it" as a referential. Could just be a mistake in the answer prompt.
@itsdorinlee I thought this too. After asking ChatGPT to clarify, it said that "it" would not be a referent in this case as it is simply a filler to help with the structure of the sentence. It is not used to refer to a noun. Being completely honest, I'm very confused as well.
#feedback Question 1 is a repeat from the previous Skill Builder
In Q4, does anyone else think that "them" in the first sentence could also refer to editorialists?
@joycetheok yeah, I was confused on that question as well.
@joycetheok Unsure if this is still a topic of concern but I'm leaving this below in case it can be of help to you or anyone else who had a similar approach to this question.
I think you determine that 'them' refers to 'personal attacks' by using the 'but' in the middle of the sentence. 'Personal attacks' is established as the focus of the sentence before the comma and then you are provided two different opinions on the them (the editorialists and voters).
A similar example would be: My dad made milk tea, I like milk tea but my brother does not.
The 'but' is essentially introducing an opposing perspective on the established topic.
number 2 is so odd lol
In Q4, the statement "When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention."
When I looked at the word 'them', my first thought was that it referred to editorialists, not personal attacks. Does the referential always refer to a concept within the subject of the sentence, if not, how would I better draw this linkage?
My after-the-fact justification was that the "everyone" in the following clause must have been referring to the voters (and the editorialists). In that context, the subject of the argument remains the 'such attacks' rather than whatever the editorialists are saying. Still, the extra context they eliminated from beyond the ellipsis would've been helpful for making that determination.
This was a very necessary lesson