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...
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.
That first “it” got me shook. So obvious that I missed it.
1
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.
103 comments
In question 4 isn't everyone a referential for voters?
These are frying me... anyone else?
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."
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...
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.