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.
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.
For question 4, why wouldn't "and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition" be considered an additional object clause to be drawn out and separated? Would "and so" not be considered its own predicate object if it is linking a different clause/point to the same sentence? Or does this not need to be separated out like that because it is a cause and effect relationship?
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?
It took me a couple questions but got the hang of it. I feel like if there was more extensive practice on this, it would solidify my understanding further. I have been trying to utilize this every day when I am reading!
#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?
Ok so I went way to in depth with this and tried to make the object clause into S/P and found it very hard after watching I realized I misunderstood the goal of the exercise but I did found out how relevant referential are and heres how:
Q3: Fans of the movie argue that it will have a significant impact on the perspectives of many viewers.
S = Fans
P = Argue
OS - it will (it as in the movie will)
OP - have a significant impact on the perspectives ( perspectives as in the viewers)
Hope this helps someone -- without being able to see referents this would make 0 sense.
"it [the bakery] can't continue to bake its traditional bread and switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal."
Yields
The bakery can't continue to bake its traditional bread.
The bakery switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal.
The two sentences are linked by "and," which in this context suggests that (1) causes (2). But isn't this a somewhat misleading analysis? Look at the whole sentence:
"A bakery in a region facing wheat shortage realizes that it can't continue to bake its traditional bread and switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal."
The fact that the bakery can't continue to bake its traditional bread isn't per se what causes it to switch up the recipe. Rather, it's the bakery realizing this fact.
Maybe the solution is that this fact and the bakery realizing so are related, and both play a causal role in bringing about (2). But my takeaway from this is that it's a reminder not to ignore the rest of the sentence when faced with a complex object clause.
for question 5, I see either: the two predicates, "realize" and "switch"; or a causal clause that requires the language "and so" in place of "and". I say this because the bakery does not "realize" that it "switches to another recipe". It switches as a result of realizing it cannot bake its traditional bread. Please advise.
#help / question! For Q4, can the sentence be considered an argument?
Premise: "A library in a digital-first community finds that it is unable to lend its printed books"
Conclusion: "so displays them only when requested for an exhibition."
Wondering if "so" can be seen as a conclusion indicator word. Also, if I ask myself, "why should I believe that libraries in a digital-first community displays printed books only when requested for an exhibition?", the answer can be "because they find that they're unable to lend it's printed books".
I know this is not the main objective of this exercise, but just want to continue practicing what I learned in the arguments section & applying it!
For Q.4, is it ok to think unable to lend its printed books as an object clause? (and this leading to the consequence of displaying them only when requested)
Thought that finding out 'they are unable to lend so they displayed them only when requested' was quite odd- (since finding out their OWN action doesn't seem to flow logically)
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
83 comments
I struggled with is one 3/5.
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.
lets get this bread
5/5
will this become intuitive, because how will I have enough time on the test to do this?
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.
For question 4, why wouldn't "and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition" be considered an additional object clause to be drawn out and separated? Would "and so" not be considered its own predicate object if it is linking a different clause/point to the same sentence? Or does this not need to be separated out like that because it is a cause and effect relationship?
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?
4/5!!! though i did not get it mainly because I feel like i'm getting bored but yay!!
What makes this different from prepositions that we did in the previous lessons?
I think this stuff is fun!
understanding this much more. 5/5.
5/5, woohoo!! I never thought DGP would ever come in handy, shoutout to my 8th grade English teacher!
5/5 - gaining momentum 🎉
It took me a couple questions but got the hang of it. I feel like if there was more extensive practice on this, it would solidify my understanding further. I have been trying to utilize this every day when I am reading!
#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?
Ok so I went way to in depth with this and tried to make the object clause into S/P and found it very hard after watching I realized I misunderstood the goal of the exercise but I did found out how relevant referential are and heres how:
Q3: Fans of the movie argue that it will have a significant impact on the perspectives of many viewers.
S = Fans
P = Argue
OS - it will (it as in the movie will)
OP - have a significant impact on the perspectives ( perspectives as in the viewers)
Hope this helps someone -- without being able to see referents this would make 0 sense.
5/5!!!
Question 4.
Object clause.
"it is unable to lend its printed books and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition."
What would be the Subject and Predicate?
Subject: Printed books? Library?
Predicate: unable? display?
For question 5, analyzing the object clause:
"it [the bakery] can't continue to bake its traditional bread and switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal."
Yields
The bakery can't continue to bake its traditional bread.
The bakery switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal.
The two sentences are linked by "and," which in this context suggests that (1) causes (2). But isn't this a somewhat misleading analysis? Look at the whole sentence:
"A bakery in a region facing wheat shortage realizes that it can't continue to bake its traditional bread and switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal."
The fact that the bakery can't continue to bake its traditional bread isn't per se what causes it to switch up the recipe. Rather, it's the bakery realizing this fact.
Maybe the solution is that this fact and the bakery realizing so are related, and both play a causal role in bringing about (2). But my takeaway from this is that it's a reminder not to ignore the rest of the sentence when faced with a complex object clause.
for question 5, I see either: the two predicates, "realize" and "switch"; or a causal clause that requires the language "and so" in place of "and". I say this because the bakery does not "realize" that it "switches to another recipe". It switches as a result of realizing it cannot bake its traditional bread. Please advise.
Is an object a special type of modifier of the predicate?
For all or most of these questions, why is "that" considered the predicate object? Wouldn't "that" be part of the object clause?
#help / question! For Q4, can the sentence be considered an argument?
Premise: "A library in a digital-first community finds that it is unable to lend its printed books"
Conclusion: "so displays them only when requested for an exhibition."
Wondering if "so" can be seen as a conclusion indicator word. Also, if I ask myself, "why should I believe that libraries in a digital-first community displays printed books only when requested for an exhibition?", the answer can be "because they find that they're unable to lend it's printed books".
I know this is not the main objective of this exercise, but just want to continue practicing what I learned in the arguments section & applying it!
For Q.4, is it ok to think unable to lend its printed books as an object clause? (and this leading to the consequence of displaying them only when requested)
Thought that finding out 'they are unable to lend so they displayed them only when requested' was quite odd- (since finding out their OWN action doesn't seem to flow logically)