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...
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
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.
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?
"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..."
I understand how people could go both ways with the referential in the first sentence, "them". I'm chalking this up to being a poorly written, confusing sentence. Them can refer to "personal attacks" in addition to "editorialists".
The case is stronger for "personal attacks", but at this point I just want to justify my original thought which was referring to "editorialists".
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...
Does "Everyone" in the second sentence refer to voter and editorialists?
In Q5, wouldn't the word "both" refer to the qualities that Rae's newest work excels in, which are narrative suspense and character development?
For Q4, I would like greater clarity in assigning ambiguous referentials like "them" to their appropriate referent. While the consistent topic of the passage is the personal attacks of politicians, the "them" could refer to the editorialists. The last sentence could be dismissing. the criticisms of the editorialists for overemphasizing the personal attacks of politicians because of the knowledge that the attacks will end after election day.
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.
For question 2: could we just not say, the otherwise is referencing the president? As acting in the best interest of the nation is embedded in the subset of the president. I just want to make sure my thinking process is correct.
Similar to question 3: is which reference to the entire clause, therefore increase in Magpies or just magpies? If it is not correct, how should I consider, and discern when is it only referencing to noun and when is it referencing to the entire clause?
In Q5, why is "those" only a reference to "novels" and not "the most successful novels?" The success of the novels feels extremely relevant to the rest of the clause. Not all novels deliver narrative suspense and character development - only the most successful ones. Thus, shouldn't the referent be the entirety of the phrase ("the most successful novels") and not just "novels?"
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.
93 comments
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...
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
I'm having such a hard time understanding referentials. I really can't seem to point them out.
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
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.
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?
I'm a bit confused with Q2. How is "acted" a referent? I was under the impression that verbs cannot be referents.
None of this helps with the LSAT practice question next up by the way.
5/5!!!
"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..."
I understand how people could go both ways with the referential in the first sentence, "them". I'm chalking this up to being a poorly written, confusing sentence. Them can refer to "personal attacks" in addition to "editorialists".
The case is stronger for "personal attacks", but at this point I just want to justify my original thought which was referring to "editorialists".
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...
Does "Everyone" in the second sentence refer to voter and editorialists?
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?
In Q5, wouldn't the word "both" refer to the qualities that Rae's newest work excels in, which are narrative suspense and character development?
For Q4, I would like greater clarity in assigning ambiguous referentials like "them" to their appropriate referent. While the consistent topic of the passage is the personal attacks of politicians, the "them" could refer to the editorialists. The last sentence could be dismissing. the criticisms of the editorialists for overemphasizing the personal attacks of politicians because of the knowledge that the attacks will end after election day.
That first “it” got me shook. So obvious that I missed it.
would newest work be referring to a novel due to newest work being such a broad thing to say?
Some referentials are so obvious that my brains skips over them.
Q5: Maybe I am being overly pedantic, is it of "successful novels" being referenced to those, or simply "novels"
because it seems the comparative is for the "MOST" of successful novels.
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.
For question 2: could we just not say, the otherwise is referencing the president? As acting in the best interest of the nation is embedded in the subset of the president. I just want to make sure my thinking process is correct.
Similar to question 3: is which reference to the entire clause, therefore increase in Magpies or just magpies? If it is not correct, how should I consider, and discern when is it only referencing to noun and when is it referencing to the entire clause?
i won't lie, kinda difficult where to differentiate the referentials
In Montana, we call them "mag-pyes".
In Q5, why is "those" only a reference to "novels" and not "the most successful novels?" The success of the novels feels extremely relevant to the rest of the clause. Not all novels deliver narrative suspense and character development - only the most successful ones. Thus, shouldn't the referent be the entirety of the phrase ("the most successful novels") and not just "novels?"