Is there anything wrong with thinking about the two subjects as one? "Harry or Ron" as a unit "will take Prof Flitwicks class" (predicate)? Im trying to think of an an example where this type of metal condensing would lead to trouble. Does anybody have any ideas?
So, the second example cannot be broken apart into two separate sentences based upon its conjunction right? Meaning, the word "or" suggests that either Ron or Harry will enroll in charms class, not necessarily both, so you then need to keep it one sentence. #help
The concept of two subject with one predicate is important, especially for answer choices on RC. Consider the following example from prep test 33 question 15, answer choice C.
“The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on plant growth and global warming have been overstated.”
The subject is “effects”, which is modified to be “beneficial effects” which is then further modified to be “possible beneficial effects”
The subject “effects” is even further modified as effects coming from the “increased levels of Co2.”
So now we see that “the possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2” has the predicate verb “have been over stated.”
However, if you look deeper we see that due to the modifier “on” in the sentence, the subject is broken up into two distinct ideas. “Plant growth” and “Global warming”
So we can break this up using the different modified subjects.
1. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on plant growth have been overstated
2. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on global warming have been overstated.
Both things have been overstated in regards of the beneficial effects that received from increase levels of Co2.
When you understand this answer choice, it is very apparent and easy to get right, if you were able to see the basic reasoning structure of the passage.
However, let’s say you were not able to see that “The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2” was modified not only by “plant growth” but also by “global warming,” which ultimately breaks up into 2 distinct subjects, you may have comprehended this answer choice as follow:
1. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 has been overstated.
2. Global warming has been overstated.
If you read the passage, you know for a fact the passage disagree with the statement that Global warming has been overstated, so you would have marked at a very easy to get right answer choice. For the flawed comprehension above, the right sentence structure would have a comma used as follow:
“The possible beneficial effects of increased Co2 on plant growth, and global warming have been overstated.
So, not only do you have to see that there is two subjects to one predicate, but you have to modify both subjects appropriately.
48
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.
13 comments
Is there anything wrong with thinking about the two subjects as one? "Harry or Ron" as a unit "will take Prof Flitwicks class" (predicate)? Im trying to think of an an example where this type of metal condensing would lead to trouble. Does anybody have any ideas?
So, the second example cannot be broken apart into two separate sentences based upon its conjunction right? Meaning, the word "or" suggests that either Ron or Harry will enroll in charms class, not necessarily both, so you then need to keep it one sentence. #help
Can't you separate this sentence "Harry or Ron will enroll in Professor Flitwick's Charms Class," into two separate sentences.
"Harry might enroll in Professor Flitwick's Charms Class."
"Ron might enroll in Professor Flitwick's Charms Class."
Or does that not work?
#help #feedback
With the Harry and Ron example...Doesn't 'or' imply one or the other? Not both? #help
The concept of two subject with one predicate is important, especially for answer choices on RC. Consider the following example from prep test 33 question 15, answer choice C.
“The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on plant growth and global warming have been overstated.”
The subject is “effects”, which is modified to be “beneficial effects” which is then further modified to be “possible beneficial effects”
The subject “effects” is even further modified as effects coming from the “increased levels of Co2.”
So now we see that “the possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2” has the predicate verb “have been over stated.”
However, if you look deeper we see that due to the modifier “on” in the sentence, the subject is broken up into two distinct ideas. “Plant growth” and “Global warming”
So we can break this up using the different modified subjects.
1. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on plant growth have been overstated
2. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 on global warming have been overstated.
Both things have been overstated in regards of the beneficial effects that received from increase levels of Co2.
When you understand this answer choice, it is very apparent and easy to get right, if you were able to see the basic reasoning structure of the passage.
However, let’s say you were not able to see that “The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2” was modified not only by “plant growth” but also by “global warming,” which ultimately breaks up into 2 distinct subjects, you may have comprehended this answer choice as follow:
1. The possible beneficial effects of increased levels of Co2 has been overstated.
2. Global warming has been overstated.
If you read the passage, you know for a fact the passage disagree with the statement that Global warming has been overstated, so you would have marked at a very easy to get right answer choice. For the flawed comprehension above, the right sentence structure would have a comma used as follow:
“The possible beneficial effects of increased Co2 on plant growth, and global warming have been overstated.
So, not only do you have to see that there is two subjects to one predicate, but you have to modify both subjects appropriately.