Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but that cannot be true since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Somepeople refer to CONTEXT.
Clause 1: Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. (Context clause)
But refers to the incoming CONCLUSION.
Conclusion: That cannot be true.
Since refers to PREMISE.
Clause 2: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Example 2:
Because public officials were unable to clearly communicate the urgency of the situation, the attempt to contain the outbreak failed.
Clause 1: Because public officials were unable to clearly communicate the urgency of the situation,
Because refers to PREMISE. The "Why this conclusion is happening?"
Clause 2: The attempt to contain the outbreak failed.
The conclusion is what happens from the premise.
Analogy relationship:
Just as how = Analogy
Beverage companies are liable for damages resulting from their tainted products, this engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work which resulted in the collapse of a lift.
Clause 1: Just as how beverage companies are liable for damages resulting from their tainted products. (CONTEXT - Analogy)
Clause 2: This engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work. (PREMISE) Which resulted in the collapse of a lift. (Conclusion from Premise).
Which refers to "engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work"
why are we learning so much so quickly? its kinda making me feel like im in a scramble and its throwing me off. or maybe learning all this is not that important.
@DillonDavidesfahani I think the idea is to go at your own pace. If you need to take anymore time on any of the fundamentals you can review the lesson and really break down what you're not understanding until you get it right.
LSAC relies heavily on relationships between clauses. Specific phrases will illustrate a relationship (causal, conditional, analogous, disjunctive, etc). If you can identify the phrases and the subsequent relationship (or structure), you can navigate the LSAT. With unlimited time, you should be able to succeed, but there are time constraints. Remember, time is king.
Stim: Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, but that cannot be true since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
I love how the conclusion is referential. Therefore, if you misunderstand the referent, you cannot understand the conclusion.
@jayprev97 And it's a tricky referent, because "that" could refer to the belief some people have about mammals, or the content of said belief. You need to use context clues from the rest of the stim to choose the likelier option.
this is exactly what i was thinking - I believe we can given that in the example with "since" as a support relationship (tigers), the sentence could have included "because" in its place and would relay the same argument.
i.e. "Since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
"Because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
Yes! Imagine putting "therefore" before "the attempt to contain the outbreak failed." It makes perfect sense! Also, because is a premise indicator. Hope that helps.
Not a huge problem and would probably be difficult to fix/edit but caught my eye that at 3:35 in the video, it says context cause instead of context clause! #feedback
#help What is the distinct difference between conditional and causal relationships? Conditional relationships require a certain threshold is met in order for another action/thing to happen. Does not that follow the same pattern as causal relationships?
To my understanding the difference is kind of pointed out via the indicator words. (this still might not make sense, but it's how I have looked at them)
Conditional: this thing cannot happen UNLESS this other thing happens
vs
Causal: this happened BECAUSE this other thing happened
He stated that he would touch on these both further in later segments, but this feels like the most basic sense of each one. They are similar, but not identical.
Ironically, when clauses are linked, I find it much easier to see the relationship between concepts but I find it harder to break down the concepts themselves.
The solution: Take away the indicator for a second, put the clauses in their own individual sentences, break it down, and then implement the indicator word back in to see the relationship.
For example:
“The lions of the African Savanna that are not fully developed sometimes roam away from their herd which could be detrimental to the ecosystem, so, it is necessary that we divert funds away from obsolete projects to focus on ensuring lions do not roam from their herds.”
Indicator word: so
Break down the two clauses:
1. The lions of the African Savanna that are not fully developed sometimes roam away from their herd which could be detrimental to the ecosystem.
2. It is necessary that we divert funds away from obsolete projects to focus on ensuring lions do not roam from their herds.
Ok, now, I am break down each sentence.
1. Young lions in Africa roam which can be bad for eco.
2. We need to use funds to stop this.
Now go back and throw the indicator in their:
1. Young lions in Africa roam which can be bad for eco.
SO
2. We need to use funds to stop this.
Doing this allowed me to not only see the relationship but to understand the concepts in the relationship.
When clauses are given in separate sentences, especially without an indicator, I find it easier to break down the concepts themselves, but it is harder to see the relationship.
Solution: Put the two separate clauses into the purest form of a linked support relationship. “Because/we can conclude that,” and see if it makes sense.
Example:
The population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations that are approximately 100 miles within the equator.
Ants may have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter climates.
Sentence broken up messy to understand, no problem. But, what about the relationships between these two ideas?
Now we can play around with it a little bit:
Because ants may have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter climates, we can conclude that the population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations approximately 100 miles within the equator.
Makes sense right?
Uhm not really.
We are not concluding from the possibility of ants having a certain gene. Rather, we are trying to explain the phenomenon that rare ants have been steadily increasing in locations around the equator.
Because the population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations that are approximately 100 miles within the equator, we may conclude that that ants have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter environments.
There we go. Do not be afraid to go back and forth between sentences using indicators as a pivot point.
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.
25 comments
Omg, breaking the sentences down into clauses and determining their relationships honestly makes this click so much for me. This was a great lesson!
Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but that cannot be true since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Some people refer to CONTEXT.
Clause 1: Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. (Context clause)
But refers to the incoming CONCLUSION.
Conclusion: That cannot be true.
Since refers to PREMISE.
Clause 2: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Example 2:
Because public officials were unable to clearly communicate the urgency of the situation, the attempt to contain the outbreak failed.
Clause 1: Because public officials were unable to clearly communicate the urgency of the situation,
Because refers to PREMISE. The "Why this conclusion is happening?"
Clause 2: The attempt to contain the outbreak failed.
The conclusion is what happens from the premise.
Analogy relationship:
Just as how = Analogy
Beverage companies are liable for damages resulting from their tainted products, this engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work which resulted in the collapse of a lift.
Clause 1: Just as how beverage companies are liable for damages resulting from their tainted products. (CONTEXT - Analogy)
Clause 2: This engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work. (PREMISE) Which resulted in the collapse of a lift. (Conclusion from Premise).
Which refers to "engineering firm is liable for its negligent repair work"
If the sentence… - You’re likely in…
Gives reasons to believe something - Support
Sets a rule or requirement - Conditional
Explains why something happened - Causal
Compares two situations - Analogy
I won't lie this is so overwhelming
imagine tackling the LSAT blind - those LSAT writers would have a field day with you...
@lesteryxue literally cooked
@lesteryxue no fr :((
why are we learning so much so quickly? its kinda making me feel like im in a scramble and its throwing me off. or maybe learning all this is not that important.
@DillonDavidesfahani I think the idea is to go at your own pace. If you need to take anymore time on any of the fundamentals you can review the lesson and really break down what you're not understanding until you get it right.
Very helpful, can't wait to learn about them more in-depth though.
This honestly spells out exactly how to breakdown lengthy sentences wow. I feel like I was searching for a needle in a haystack before this.
LSAC relies heavily on relationships between clauses. Specific phrases will illustrate a relationship (causal, conditional, analogous, disjunctive, etc). If you can identify the phrases and the subsequent relationship (or structure), you can navigate the LSAT. With unlimited time, you should be able to succeed, but there are time constraints. Remember, time is king.
Stim: Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, but that cannot be true since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
I love how the conclusion is referential. Therefore, if you misunderstand the referent, you cannot understand the conclusion.
@jayprev97 And it's a tricky referent, because "that" could refer to the belief some people have about mammals, or the content of said belief. You need to use context clues from the rest of the stim to choose the likelier option.
#help
In the causal claim:
"Because public officials were unable to clearly communicate the urgency of the situation, the attempt to contain the outbreak failed."
Can we also relabel the effect clause as the conclusion, and the causal clause as the premise?
this is exactly what i was thinking - I believe we can given that in the example with "since" as a support relationship (tigers), the sentence could have included "because" in its place and would relay the same argument.
i.e. "Since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
"Because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
Yes! Imagine putting "therefore" before "the attempt to contain the outbreak failed." It makes perfect sense! Also, because is a premise indicator. Hope that helps.
soooo many lessons in foundations </3
Not a huge problem and would probably be difficult to fix/edit but caught my eye that at 3:35 in the video, it says context cause instead of context clause! #feedback
#help What is the distinct difference between conditional and causal relationships? Conditional relationships require a certain threshold is met in order for another action/thing to happen. Does not that follow the same pattern as causal relationships?
#help I have the same question!
To my understanding the difference is kind of pointed out via the indicator words. (this still might not make sense, but it's how I have looked at them)
Conditional: this thing cannot happen UNLESS this other thing happens
vs
Causal: this happened BECAUSE this other thing happened
He stated that he would touch on these both further in later segments, but this feels like the most basic sense of each one. They are similar, but not identical.
Ironically, when clauses are linked, I find it much easier to see the relationship between concepts but I find it harder to break down the concepts themselves.
The solution: Take away the indicator for a second, put the clauses in their own individual sentences, break it down, and then implement the indicator word back in to see the relationship.
For example:
“The lions of the African Savanna that are not fully developed sometimes roam away from their herd which could be detrimental to the ecosystem, so, it is necessary that we divert funds away from obsolete projects to focus on ensuring lions do not roam from their herds.”
Indicator word: so
Break down the two clauses:
1. The lions of the African Savanna that are not fully developed sometimes roam away from their herd which could be detrimental to the ecosystem.
2. It is necessary that we divert funds away from obsolete projects to focus on ensuring lions do not roam from their herds.
Ok, now, I am break down each sentence.
1. Young lions in Africa roam which can be bad for eco.
2. We need to use funds to stop this.
Now go back and throw the indicator in their:
1. Young lions in Africa roam which can be bad for eco.
SO
2. We need to use funds to stop this.
Doing this allowed me to not only see the relationship but to understand the concepts in the relationship.
When clauses are given in separate sentences, especially without an indicator, I find it easier to break down the concepts themselves, but it is harder to see the relationship.
Solution: Put the two separate clauses into the purest form of a linked support relationship. “Because/we can conclude that,” and see if it makes sense.
Example:
The population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations that are approximately 100 miles within the equator.
Ants may have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter climates.
Sentence broken up messy to understand, no problem. But, what about the relationships between these two ideas?
Now we can play around with it a little bit:
Because ants may have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter climates, we can conclude that the population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations approximately 100 miles within the equator.
Makes sense right?
Uhm not really.
We are not concluding from the possibility of ants having a certain gene. Rather, we are trying to explain the phenomenon that rare ants have been steadily increasing in locations around the equator.
Because the population of rare ants has steadily increased in locations that are approximately 100 miles within the equator, we may conclude that that ants have some predisposed gene that allows them to thrive in hotter environments.
There we go. Do not be afraid to go back and forth between sentences using indicators as a pivot point.
good point at the end about not being afraid to mess around with the sentences.
great comment, thank you