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!
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?
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.
16 comments
"THAT" has never been so complexed IN MY LIFE!
but that's just a theory... A GAME THEORY
#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?
#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.
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?
WOW!
Is this the same as indirect statement?
This was a great lesson!