I think it'd be wonderful to have, in the instructions of these assignments, a list of everything we should be looking for and a disclaimer that not every question will have every element. It's a little disheartening to feel like you've identified every element of the current lesson - object clauses, for instance - to have a curveball that you didn't identify referentials or modifiers!
i agree once I got the hang of the activity I noticed what there trying to do. Breaking down the grammer of these sentences helps you understand the question a million times better, and they it can help you see the flaw easily.
Why does this particular skill builder not have a lesson about "object clauses" before it? I know earlier in the curriculum there is talk about the object of the predicate, but there isn't any talk of object clauses. Should we assume the object clause is whatever comes after the predicate-object?
Also, in some of the questions the same phrase is label subject-verb and predicate-verb. For instance, in the explanation of 1.1( "Rumors suggest that cells have the ability to heal themselves."), "suggest" is labeled as the predicate-verb, and then later "rumors suggest" is labeled as the subject-verb. Just a little confused here.
This skill builder has an error, and repeats it for two examples: for questions 4 and 5. In both cases, there is a structure: subject + predicate verb + predicate object + CONJUNCTION + SECOND PREDICATE. In the video, this structure is recognized as a possible, but technically wrong way of understanding the passage. It isn't simply possible. It is the only correct analysis of the passage, for both questions 4 and 5, and failing to recognize the second predicate structure results in failure to understand the passage. For question 4: the first predicate is "finds that it is unable to lend its printed books". "that it is unable to lend its printed books" is the object. "and" is the conjunction, which is followed by a second predicate for the same subject "displays them only when requested for an exhibition." This second predicate can't be part of the object, because it does not make sense to say that "a library find that so displays them only when requested for an exhibition". "displays them" can't operate as an object for "finds". Similarly, for question 5, there are two predicates. The first is "realizes that it can't continue to bake its traditional bread" and the second is "switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal." "switches" can't be an object for "realizes". They bakery didn't realize that they switched. They realized that they can't continue with wheat flour, and they switched to a cornmeal recipe. Considering this all to be the object of 'realized' misses the meaning that the switch was a result of the realization. This is a basic scoping error, and, honestly, it is disappointing to see it not once but twice, and shortly after a discussion of the concept that a subject can have two predicates. I realize Ping is saying he's not rigorously teaching grammar, but parsing the difference between an object and a second predicate is fairly important to understanding a passage.
idk if this is helpful but, a couple sections later, the course recommends reading widely to help with comprehension.
I find that 19th English novels and short stories tend to be really dense with subordinate clauses, modifiers of all kinds, and referentials. Dickens especially. Even more so read aloud.
Now that Object clause is introduced- it makes things easier to put together. I wasn't understanding the gap because all I wanted to do was put the pieces together to make a full puzzle- rather than a partial (i.e., main subject, and verb). I need more practice, but I thought I'd share.
This seems to be another intuitive process. If you understand the characters of the sentence and what they mean in relation to each other, you are good. This isn't something to get caught up on! Most of us understand what is going on in each sentence. The point of this lesson, is to know HOW to break a sentence down so that it is easier to digest when confused. No, we will not have the time to do an exercise like this on the real exam. However, if not already, and with practice, your mind will be able to process this info in seconds. I just wanted to reassure some folks! Its okay if the logistics of this lesson are a bit... mind boggling. You likely already know how to do this! I have gotten a tonnn of lessons technically wrong, such as missing labels or combing ideas that should be separate, but I seem understand the overriding point. If you are like me, trust you will be fine!
In his explanation of question 5, the instructor says: “What thing does the bakery realize? It realized that it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread and as a consequence switched to a recipe that uses cornmeal”
But the answer key says that the word “and” on its own does not indicate a causal relationship between the clauses “it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” and “it switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal”. The answer key says that “based on the meaning of the two clauses it’s strongly implied that the second clause is a consequence of the first clause.
I’ve done all the lessons in order so I haven’t gotten to the in-depth lessons that explain the types of relationships that can be expressed by joining clauses together. But it feels like whether or not the relationship is a causal one is important to the overall understanding of the sentence b/c if we’re saying that the fact that the bakery “can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” definitelycauses the bakery to switch to a cornmeal recipe – that’s different than saying that it’s likely to have caused that switch.
So I'm wondering: Is it important to the overall understanding of the sentence whether or not the relationship is causal?
#help on the previous page, it says "that the sky is blue" is the predicate object. However, question 1 says "that" is the predicate object and "cells have the ability to heal themselves" is the object clause. Why is that? Going off of this skill builder shouldn't the previous page say "that" is the predicate object and "the sky is blue" is the object clause?
114 comments
I think it'd be wonderful to have, in the instructions of these assignments, a list of everything we should be looking for and a disclaimer that not every question will have every element. It's a little disheartening to feel like you've identified every element of the current lesson - object clauses, for instance - to have a curveball that you didn't identify referentials or modifiers!
lets get this bread
I walked out of my last classroom 12 years ago so the grammar section has been a wonderful refresher so far. 👏👏
Im not gonna lie im starting to understand. This one was not bad at all.
i agree once I got the hang of the activity I noticed what there trying to do. Breaking down the grammer of these sentences helps you understand the question a million times better, and they it can help you see the flaw easily.
Why does this particular skill builder not have a lesson about "object clauses" before it? I know earlier in the curriculum there is talk about the object of the predicate, but there isn't any talk of object clauses. Should we assume the object clause is whatever comes after the predicate-object?
#feedback #help
Also, in some of the questions the same phrase is label subject-verb and predicate-verb. For instance, in the explanation of 1.1( "Rumors suggest that cells have the ability to heal themselves."), "suggest" is labeled as the predicate-verb, and then later "rumors suggest" is labeled as the subject-verb. Just a little confused here.
This skill builder has an error, and repeats it for two examples: for questions 4 and 5. In both cases, there is a structure: subject + predicate verb + predicate object + CONJUNCTION + SECOND PREDICATE. In the video, this structure is recognized as a possible, but technically wrong way of understanding the passage. It isn't simply possible. It is the only correct analysis of the passage, for both questions 4 and 5, and failing to recognize the second predicate structure results in failure to understand the passage. For question 4: the first predicate is "finds that it is unable to lend its printed books". "that it is unable to lend its printed books" is the object. "and" is the conjunction, which is followed by a second predicate for the same subject "displays them only when requested for an exhibition." This second predicate can't be part of the object, because it does not make sense to say that "a library find that so displays them only when requested for an exhibition". "displays them" can't operate as an object for "finds". Similarly, for question 5, there are two predicates. The first is "realizes that it can't continue to bake its traditional bread" and the second is "switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal." "switches" can't be an object for "realizes". They bakery didn't realize that they switched. They realized that they can't continue with wheat flour, and they switched to a cornmeal recipe. Considering this all to be the object of 'realized' misses the meaning that the switch was a result of the realization. This is a basic scoping error, and, honestly, it is disappointing to see it not once but twice, and shortly after a discussion of the concept that a subject can have two predicates. I realize Ping is saying he's not rigorously teaching grammar, but parsing the difference between an object and a second predicate is fairly important to understanding a passage.
@dh2303 Thank you for pointing this out, I was a bit confused about this as well and I hope others can offer additonal insight into this
#feedback It would be helpful if the answers broke down the object clause into subject, predicate, and modifiers.
one of the bets lessons of how to establish the ability to see the pattern
why are the first 5 questions literally the same with slight changes lol
This is practice and trying to get you to see a patter.
I think it is to emphasize how one word can completely change the entire meaning of the clause
will this become intuitive, because how will I have enough time on the test to do this?
idk if this is helpful but, a couple sections later, the course recommends reading widely to help with comprehension.
I find that 19th English novels and short stories tend to be really dense with subordinate clauses, modifiers of all kinds, and referentials. Dickens especially. Even more so read aloud.
Might be fun to read A Christmas Carol this holiday season as prep: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46/46-h/46-h.htm
This might help your brain adjust to long sentences with many modifiers. It certainly helped me.
@law_guy I additionally recommend Wuthering Heights, Pride & Prejudice, and Middlemarch
@mibuch Currently reading Wuthering Heights. It is so good.
@law_guy Good advice
Now that Object clause is introduced- it makes things easier to put together. I wasn't understanding the gap because all I wanted to do was put the pieces together to make a full puzzle- rather than a partial (i.e., main subject, and verb). I need more practice, but I thought I'd share.
4/5!!! though i did not get it mainly because I feel like i'm getting bored but yay!!
easy peasy
Is the predicate object going to be "that" for every clause??!
good practice makes perfect. 5/5
understanding this much more. 5/5.
5/5 that's very easy honestly
idk how i managed to get these right - like i seem to get it but i also don't
if only the LSAT was just breaking down sentences it would be such a breeze
This seems to be another intuitive process. If you understand the characters of the sentence and what they mean in relation to each other, you are good. This isn't something to get caught up on! Most of us understand what is going on in each sentence. The point of this lesson, is to know HOW to break a sentence down so that it is easier to digest when confused. No, we will not have the time to do an exercise like this on the real exam. However, if not already, and with practice, your mind will be able to process this info in seconds. I just wanted to reassure some folks! Its okay if the logistics of this lesson are a bit... mind boggling. You likely already know how to do this! I have gotten a tonnn of lessons technically wrong, such as missing labels or combing ideas that should be separate, but I seem understand the overriding point. If you are like me, trust you will be fine!
5/5
i struggled a bit
In his explanation of question 5, the instructor says: “What thing does the bakery realize? It realized that it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread and as a consequence switched to a recipe that uses cornmeal”
But the answer key says that the word “and” on its own does not indicate a causal relationship between the clauses “it can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” and “it switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal”. The answer key says that “based on the meaning of the two clauses it’s strongly implied that the second clause is a consequence of the first clause.
I’ve done all the lessons in order so I haven’t gotten to the in-depth lessons that explain the types of relationships that can be expressed by joining clauses together. But it feels like whether or not the relationship is a causal one is important to the overall understanding of the sentence b/c if we’re saying that the fact that the bakery “can’t continue to bake its traditional bread” definitely causes the bakery to switch to a cornmeal recipe – that’s different than saying that it’s likely to have caused that switch.
So I'm wondering: Is it important to the overall understanding of the sentence whether or not the relationship is causal?
What makes this different from prepositions that we did in the previous lessons?
#help on the previous page, it says "that the sky is blue" is the predicate object. However, question 1 says "that" is the predicate object and "cells have the ability to heal themselves" is the object clause. Why is that? Going off of this skill builder shouldn't the previous page say "that" is the predicate object and "the sky is blue" is the object clause?