Any advice on how you guys take your notes? Do you watch the video first then take notes afterwards or take notes as you're watching the video? I need help lol!
@AaronMiller2003 I've been watching the videos first, then taking notes on only things I didn't understand. I don't take any notes on things I already intuitively understand.
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?
@lizaloug97880 "Or" is used to create division between the two men in the sentence. You cannot have both Harry and Ron enrolled in Prof. Flit wick's Charms class. Because of this they should not be viewed as a unit- unless explicitly stated or supported by a referential. I would assume in other examples with multiple subjects they should be viewed the same way- solely.
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
I think that's right! With the presence of the word 'or' (in comparison to 'and' in the first exemplar), it requires us to expand the sentence to account for the two possibilities presented in the initial sentence.
i think because you are changing the probability now. You went from will to might
Will is a must word. That issues 100% certainty. The main sentence is that Harry or Ron will enroll in class. So we know at least one of them will enroll. It could be both of them, but one of them will
In English, "or" can be used inclusively (either Harry or Ron or both...) or exclusively (either Harry or Ron, but not both). In LSAT lawgic, we assume that "or" is inclusive unless the author has given us a clear reason to do otherwise (for instance, by adding the phrase "...but not both."), since that is the way it is used on the test.
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.
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.
17 comments
Any advice on how you guys take your notes? Do you watch the video first then take notes afterwards or take notes as you're watching the video? I need help lol!
@AaronMiller2003 I've been watching the videos first, then taking notes on only things I didn't understand. I don't take any notes on things I already intuitively understand.
@AaronMiller2003 make sure to write things in your own words, it helps you retain information
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?
@lizaloug97880 "Or" is used to create division between the two men in the sentence. You cannot have both Harry and Ron enrolled in Prof. Flit wick's Charms class. Because of this they should not be viewed as a unit- unless explicitly stated or supported by a referential. I would assume in other examples with multiple subjects they should be viewed the same way- solely.
@teaganneumann it's possible to have Harry take the class, Ron take the class, or both of them take the class.
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
I think that's right! With the presence of the word 'or' (in comparison to 'and' in the first exemplar), it requires us to expand the sentence to account for the two possibilities presented in the initial sentence.
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
i think because you are changing the probability now. You went from will to might
Will is a must word. That issues 100% certainty. The main sentence is that Harry or Ron will enroll in class. So we know at least one of them will enroll. It could be both of them, but one of them will
Thank you for this note, I wondered the same thing!
With the Harry and Ron example...Doesn't 'or' imply one or the other? Not both? #help
Thank you!
Good question Hannah!
In English, "or" can be used inclusively (either Harry or Ron or both...) or exclusively (either Harry or Ron, but not both). In LSAT lawgic, we assume that "or" is inclusive unless the author has given us a clear reason to do otherwise (for instance, by adding the phrase "...but not both."), since that is the way it is used on the test.
Hope that helps!
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.
Thanks for giving an LSAT example of why this is so important!
I appreciate all your comments. Makes understanding these lessons so much easier. 7SAGE hire this person as a tutor lol