The first sentence to me that is condensed seems as though the reason they took over the world is because they learned to harmonize whereas when they are split into two sentences. Should I not look at it as if it is cause/effect?
@ArianaVerner It is not cause/effect. Just because one predicate came first in a sentence before a second predicate does not make it more important/consequential than the second predicate.
Why is predicate- 1 "learned to harmonize" instead of "learned" and why is predicate -2 "took over the world" and not "took over?". Can someone kindly clarify? As I'm going through this module, I'm doing my best to retain and apply what I've learned in previous lessons.
@Cee🦋 I think because if you just said learned and took over, that would be incomplete. Someone would ask "learn what"? and "took over what"? A predicate isn't just always a verb, it can be a verb and a noun "took over the world".
That sentence really reads like a metaphor for how power works—"the fat cats learned to harmonize" implies that once the elites stopped competing and started collaborating, they quietly consolidated control. And then "took over the world" not through force, but through coordination
I had the same thought. I'm guessing there are indicators that need to be present in order to suggest causation. IE. The man used 7sage and because of this got a 180 on LSAT.
The concept of parsing sentences with one subject and two predicates is especially important for answer choices we see on reading comp.
Take the following example of an answer choice from PT 33 RC:
“Most readers (subject) of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published concluded (predicate #1) that it was simply a domestic novel and were thus disinclined (predicate #2) to see it as an attempt to provoke thought.”
The core of the sentence breaks into 2 clauses.
1. readers concluded
2. readers were disinclined
Now. Let’s modify this baby to make these independent clauses.
readers. All readers? No, most readers. Most readers of Harry Potter? No most reader of Jacob’s narrative. Most readers of Jacob’s narrative that lived long after it was published. No, most readers of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published. Ok there is our subject entirely modified.
“Most readers of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published”
Let’s dive into the predicates. What about these readers.
Well they concluded. Okay concluded what? That it was a simply a domestic novel. Okay. Did they do anything else? Yes. They were disinclined to see it as a.. what? A good book? No. As an attempt to provoke thought.
Okay so now we see it.
1. Most readers of Jacob’s novel when it was first published concluded that it was simply a domestic novel.
2. Most readers of Jacob’s novel when it was first published were disinclined to see it (referring back to Jacob’s narrative) as an attempt to provoke thought.
1 subject two predicates.
But wait, there is more!
The sentence does that the first predicate caused the second predicate, we know this by the use of the word “thus.” The tow subject-predicate statements are independent clauses, but the sentences, by using one word, indicates to us that the predicates have a causal relationship.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
25 comments
Lebron James kills terrorists and saves children. Bam
The first sentence to me that is condensed seems as though the reason they took over the world is because they learned to harmonize whereas when they are split into two sentences. Should I not look at it as if it is cause/effect?
@ArianaVerner It is not cause/effect. Just because one predicate came first in a sentence before a second predicate does not make it more important/consequential than the second predicate.
@jessrrob1015 HAHAHA
@jessrrob1015 thats too funny
@jessrrob1015 LMAO
Why is predicate- 1 "learned to harmonize" instead of "learned" and why is predicate -2 "took over the world" and not "took over?". Can someone kindly clarify? As I'm going through this module, I'm doing my best to retain and apply what I've learned in previous lessons.
@Cee🦋 I think because if you just said learned and took over, that would be incomplete. Someone would ask "learn what"? and "took over what"? A predicate isn't just always a verb, it can be a verb and a noun "took over the world".
The tough men learned to create a fire and built a Kingdom in the Desert.
Subject-noun = men
verb = learned
verb = built
2 sentences:
The tough men learned to create a fire.
The tough men built a kingdom in the desert.
Conjunction junction, whats your function?
@beary13 Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.
@beary13 Hooking up cars and making 'em function
That sentence really reads like a metaphor for how power works—"the fat cats learned to harmonize" implies that once the elites stopped competing and started collaborating, they quietly consolidated control. And then "took over the world" not through force, but through coordination
starting to look like it
Is this an allegory for current affairs?
Am I wrong in assuming that combining both predicates with "and" sometimes implies that the first predicate caused or led to the second.
For example:
"The man used 7sage and got a 180 on the LSAT."
That sentence has a different implication than if it were two sentences:
"The man used 7sage." "The man got a 180 on the LSAT."
I feel like in the example in the video too, it can be read that cats harmonizing helped them take over the world.
I wouldn't interpret "A and B" as implying A caused B or that B caused A. This is a common flawed inference that the LSAT will test us on!
I had the same thought. I'm guessing there are indicators that need to be present in order to suggest causation. IE. The man used 7sage and because of this got a 180 on LSAT.
@jacoblkessler178 Saying "The man used 7sage and because of this got a 180 on LSAT." requires you to make an assumption that was not explicitly stated
The old student rediscovered the structure of grammar and enjoyed the simple elegance of language.
this is so tediousss ughh :(( but thank you for the lessons they are helpful.
The concept of parsing sentences with one subject and two predicates is especially important for answer choices we see on reading comp.
Take the following example of an answer choice from PT 33 RC:
“Most readers (subject) of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published concluded (predicate #1) that it was simply a domestic novel and were thus disinclined (predicate #2) to see it as an attempt to provoke thought.”
The core of the sentence breaks into 2 clauses.
1. readers concluded
2. readers were disinclined
Now. Let’s modify this baby to make these independent clauses.
readers. All readers? No, most readers. Most readers of Harry Potter? No most reader of Jacob’s narrative. Most readers of Jacob’s narrative that lived long after it was published. No, most readers of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published. Ok there is our subject entirely modified.
“Most readers of Jacob’s narrative when it was first published”
Let’s dive into the predicates. What about these readers.
Well they concluded. Okay concluded what? That it was a simply a domestic novel. Okay. Did they do anything else? Yes. They were disinclined to see it as a.. what? A good book? No. As an attempt to provoke thought.
Okay so now we see it.
1. Most readers of Jacob’s novel when it was first published concluded that it was simply a domestic novel.
2. Most readers of Jacob’s novel when it was first published were disinclined to see it (referring back to Jacob’s narrative) as an attempt to provoke thought.
1 subject two predicates.
But wait, there is more!
The sentence does that the first predicate caused the second predicate, we know this by the use of the word “thus.” The tow subject-predicate statements are independent clauses, but the sentences, by using one word, indicates to us that the predicates have a causal relationship.
Interesting,
thank you for this
you are a legend preston