Okay so I understood both examples with the elephants, but can someone please use the 3-step process to break down and thoroughly explain the comparative claim from the last lesson:
"Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn."
The comments I read in this lesson about how to break down said claim are confusing me a bit.
@Cee🦋 In this instance, it seems like the comparison is between the sorghum and the "other cultivars of Corn" as you can see in the argument, they are trying to compare which cultivars of corn are closely related between the sorghum and other cultivars of corn. IT is very tricky, but once you realize the trick after seeing the word "than" it starts to click. Hope it made sense.
Some cultivars of corn (big corn) are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum (big sorghum) than to most other cultivars of corn (tiny tiny tiny corn).
In this case, "big corn" is more related to "big sorghum" because they are both big. But there's also other kinds of corn that are "tiny tiny tiny corn". Even though the "big corn" and the "tiny tiny tiny corn" are both kinds of corn, the sentence is telling us that "big corn" and "big sorghum" are more similar because they are both big.
The sentence is telling us that it is more important that 2 things are big ("big corn" and "big sorghum") than the fact that 2 things are corn ("big corn" and "tiny tiny tiny corn").
I think it’s important to emphasize here if we want to emphasize suspending common belief for the test. I think we all need to understand that no matter the argument we need to run with it. Say for example we do the negating statement of “elephants feed more in the winter than in the summer.” Okay, whatever let’s assume those premises and claims are true…
I believe comparative clauses can also express equality. Your statement is a comparison that still compares two things/situations and that the two things are equal.
I keep seeing people attempt the corn example from the last video, and it seems like everyone identifies A and B as sorghum vs. other corn, but I'm a bit confused. This is how I would do it.
Sentence: Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
1. A: some cultivars of corn vs. B: most other cultivars of corn
2. Quality: how morphologically similar to sorghum
For those confused here is a another way of explaining it. For the 2nd step in the process, we are NOT comparing MOST with sorghum, because the claim never states how close MOST cultivars are with sorghum.
Therefore, we cannot center the comparative around Sorghum, because we don't know where MOST fits.
We only know that sorghum (first item) is closer related to some cultivars (quality compared) than MOST cultivars (second item)
@clairebear22 I think it's fine. The subject of the sentence is "elephants." Of elephants, we're predicating: they feed more in the summer than in the winter. So it makes sense to consider two sets of elephants:
Elephants in the summer.
Elephants in the winter.
Then we ask: which set of elephants feeds more? And the original sentence tells us that the answer is (1) elephants in the summer. At least, that's my take, because I naturally thought about it the same way you did
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.
22 comments
#help
Okay so I understood both examples with the elephants, but can someone please use the 3-step process to break down and thoroughly explain the comparative claim from the last lesson:
"Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn."
The comments I read in this lesson about how to break down said claim are confusing me a bit.
@Cee🦋 In this instance, it seems like the comparison is between the sorghum and the "other cultivars of Corn" as you can see in the argument, they are trying to compare which cultivars of corn are closely related between the sorghum and other cultivars of corn. IT is very tricky, but once you realize the trick after seeing the word "than" it starts to click. Hope it made sense.
@Cee🦋 This is how I think about it:
Some cultivars of corn (big corn) are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum (big sorghum) than to most other cultivars of corn (tiny tiny tiny corn).
In this case, "big corn" is more related to "big sorghum" because they are both big. But there's also other kinds of corn that are "tiny tiny tiny corn". Even though the "big corn" and the "tiny tiny tiny corn" are both kinds of corn, the sentence is telling us that "big corn" and "big sorghum" are more similar because they are both big.
The sentence is telling us that it is more important that 2 things are big ("big corn" and "big sorghum") than the fact that 2 things are corn ("big corn" and "tiny tiny tiny corn").
@Cee🦋
We are comparing ‘some’ kinds of corn v. ‘other’ kinds of corn.
We are comparing them in their morphological similarity to sorghum (whatever that means).
Winner👑: ‘some’ kinds of corn. Because ‘some’ kinds of corn are more morphologically similar to sorghum than ‘other’ kinds.
I think it’s important to emphasize here if we want to emphasize suspending common belief for the test. I think we all need to understand that no matter the argument we need to run with it. Say for example we do the negating statement of “elephants feed more in the winter than in the summer.” Okay, whatever let’s assume those premises and claims are true…
Elephants feed more in the summer than in the winter.
A v. B
Summer vs. Winter
Identify what we're comparing them on.
During which do elephants feeds more
Identify the winner.
Summer. Summer feeds more than the Winter.
Toddlers have more energy than babies do.
@BreanaNunez
Toddlers v. Babies
who has more energy?
toddlers win
Are superlatives used frequently on the LSAT?
Is there always a winner? E.g. Elephants feed just as much in the summer as they do in the winter.
Seems like a comparison. But no winner.
I believe comparative clauses can also express equality. Your statement is a comparison that still compares two things/situations and that the two things are equal.
I keep seeing people attempt the corn example from the last video, and it seems like everyone identifies A and B as sorghum vs. other corn, but I'm a bit confused. This is how I would do it.
Sentence: Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
1. A: some cultivars of corn vs. B: most other cultivars of corn
2. Quality: how morphologically similar to sorghum
3. "Some cultivars of corn" is the winner
Did I go wrong? If so, where?
ok nvm i get it
some cultivars of corn are more related to sorghum than they are related to most other cultivars.
some cultivars are more related to sorghum.
some cultivars are less related to most other cultivars.
sorghum vs. most other cultivars on the quality of how morphologically related they are to some cultivars.
For those confused here is a another way of explaining it. For the 2nd step in the process, we are NOT comparing MOST with sorghum, because the claim never states how close MOST cultivars are with sorghum.
Therefore, we cannot center the comparative around Sorghum, because we don't know where MOST fits.
We only know that sorghum (first item) is closer related to some cultivars (quality compared) than MOST cultivars (second item)
Sorghum vs MOST
Centered around relation to SOME cultivars
Sorghum is more related
Is it problematic to think about it as which feeds more - elephants in the summer v. elephants in the winter?
maybe? it just doesnt follow the logic in the 3 questions
@clairebear22 I think it's fine. The subject of the sentence is "elephants." Of elephants, we're predicating: they feed more in the summer than in the winter. So it makes sense to consider two sets of elephants:
Elephants in the summer.
Elephants in the winter.
Then we ask: which set of elephants feeds more? And the original sentence tells us that the answer is (1) elephants in the summer. At least, that's my take, because I naturally thought about it the same way you did
Below is my work for the earlier comparison of corn:
Some cultivars of corn are more morphologically similar to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn
A v B: Sorghum vs other corn cultivars
condition: morphologically similarity to some cultivars of corn
winner : sorghum
I love when the lessons are under 4 minutes
In actuality, hat does this entire mini paragraph mean (the second part)?
What is meant by complication and how are these complications analyzed in isolation.
Back in my generation there were 4 steps to this process!