Even though I understand how to identify the object clause, I'm not really sure how this will help with LR & RC questions, or how to apply it in time-sensitive scenarios.
@ChinasaGrant I think the purpose of these exercises is to understand what to expect with the structure of complex sentences across the LSAT. You won't need to actively identify the types of clauses (or their names), but if you don't know how complex sentences are structured, you won't be able to read efficiently in a time-sensitive scenario. I don't think learning the grammar terminology is the point of these videos. I think the point is to get comfortable with quickly recognizing the relationships between clauses and sentences.
Hi - I was practicing this on my own and I found an interesting example that I’m struggling to parse. The excerpt is as follows - “ The Republican-backed budget reconciliation bill could lead to higher U.S. yields by increasing federal deficits and accelerating the growth of government debt, but it is unlikely to undermine investor confidence in the short to medium term.”
I think I am getting tripped up by the double verb in the original predicate - however, I believe the main grammatical parsing should take place in the object clause. Any help would be appreciated!
If you take the sentence "scientists discovered that the sky is blue", a discovery is sure proof that something is true; whereas if you take the sentence "scientists theorize that the sky is blue", a theory is just that - something unproven, therefore less clear. Depending on the context of the rest of the paragraph, the difference that one word would make would be huge in terms of support. I hope this helps!
The way I read the sentence: "Scientists discovered that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology can treat sickle cell disease by editing bone marrow cells to produce a different kind of hemoglobin" was that scientists made the discovery by editing the cells, not that the technology edited the cells. How do you recommend making the distinction clearer for myself?
I think the general context of this sentence clarified it for me. I'm aware that sickle cell disease is related to blood, and hemoglobin is a more technical term for blood. From this, it makes sense that the editing for the cells that produce the blood would treat the disease. Obviously what you know about the information in the text is unpredictable, but I would try to work out what makes the most sense from what you do know.
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.
26 comments
Even though I understand how to identify the object clause, I'm not really sure how this will help with LR & RC questions, or how to apply it in time-sensitive scenarios.
@ChinasaGrant I think the purpose of these exercises is to understand what to expect with the structure of complex sentences across the LSAT. You won't need to actively identify the types of clauses (or their names), but if you don't know how complex sentences are structured, you won't be able to read efficiently in a time-sensitive scenario. I don't think learning the grammar terminology is the point of these videos. I think the point is to get comfortable with quickly recognizing the relationships between clauses and sentences.
That is an all-powerful word that bends sentences to its will.
i dont really understand the point of analyzing "that" in this sentence or any others. how does it make or break the statement?
@ZuleyhaKumas It doesn't. That's the problem with the grammatical section on 7sage.
I get it now. I know I won’t in a couple of lessons but let me just have this one win.
You lost me on this one chief...I'll come back to this later.
Referential “that”:
The plan was flawed, and that caused delays.
(“that” = the plan being flawed)
Object-clause “that”:
The author claims that the plan was flawed.
(“that” introduces the claim)
If “that” is followed by a complete sentence and comes after a thinking/speaking verb, it’s introducing an object clause, not referring to anything.
"THAT" has never been so complexed IN MY LIFE!
@AliciaOliver Same
but that's just a theory... A GAME THEORY
@HelenaGurri I did not think I'd find Game Theory tlked about on 7sage 😭
#Help based on the skill builder on the next page, shouldn't the example on this page be like this?
[subject] scientists
[predicate verb] discovered
[predicate object] that
[object clause] the sky is blue
Hi - I was practicing this on my own and I found an interesting example that I’m struggling to parse. The excerpt is as follows - “ The Republican-backed budget reconciliation bill could lead to higher U.S. yields by increasing federal deficits and accelerating the growth of government debt, but it is unlikely to undermine investor confidence in the short to medium term.”
I think I am getting tripped up by the double verb in the original predicate - however, I believe the main grammatical parsing should take place in the object clause. Any help would be appreciated!
Okay this vid was a litttleee too fast.
Does using "that" as the object clause not simply make it act again as a referential, with the referent appearing immediately after it?
@nnkNewYork I could be incorrect, but I think "that" in this context would be more of a modifier of the verb before it, if anything.
#feedback Would be nice to have the diagram. Thanks.
Im still a little confused about the casual clause part and the how chnageing the verb to theroize changed stuff.
If you take the sentence "scientists discovered that the sky is blue", a discovery is sure proof that something is true; whereas if you take the sentence "scientists theorize that the sky is blue", a theory is just that - something unproven, therefore less clear. Depending on the context of the rest of the paragraph, the difference that one word would make would be huge in terms of support. I hope this helps!
The way I read the sentence: "Scientists discovered that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology can treat sickle cell disease by editing bone marrow cells to produce a different kind of hemoglobin" was that scientists made the discovery by editing the cells, not that the technology edited the cells. How do you recommend making the distinction clearer for myself?
Hi,
I think the general context of this sentence clarified it for me. I'm aware that sickle cell disease is related to blood, and hemoglobin is a more technical term for blood. From this, it makes sense that the editing for the cells that produce the blood would treat the disease. Obviously what you know about the information in the text is unpredictable, but I would try to work out what makes the most sense from what you do know.
WOW!
Is this the same as indirect statement?
This was a great lesson!
2nd this