What exactly is the significance of "winning"? Is it just for context? Also, does "winning" have to do specifically with which party has a more beneficial outcome? For example in this question, because having fewer allergies is a good thing, the larger family wins?
I'm confused when it comes to the children example I don't understand how "do" refers to "have" I would think it was just referring to allergies. I sometimes struggle pointing out the referentials that are refering to another word and not a topic if that makes sense.
Parsing out the nesting phrase from a comparative statement is similar to parsing out the contextual information from an argument. Similar to context in relation in an argument, the nesting phrase is irrelevant to the comparative statement, but indeed relevant to the overall structure in which the comparative statement is placed.
Examples:
Preston thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
Skip Bayless thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
Some people think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
So, no matter that the nesting phrase is, the comparison is between LeBron and Michael Jordan, and the point of comparison is better. Michael Jordan wins. This is true no matter what the nesting phrase is,
However, in relation to other parts of a passage or paragraph that the comparative statement has, the nesting phrase is important. For example, take the phrase “Skip Bayless thinks that MJ is better than LeBron.” And from information that is presented before that phrase, you know that I disagree with every single statement that Skip Bayless has ever uttered. You can now properly infer that I do not think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
26
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!
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
I could cry this makes so much sense, it's like everything just clicked
Is it still a comparative claim if there is no "winner"?
I.E - Children in American families have different allergies than do children in Canadian families.
I totally missed "do" was a referential.
What exactly is the significance of "winning"? Is it just for context? Also, does "winning" have to do specifically with which party has a more beneficial outcome? For example in this question, because having fewer allergies is a good thing, the larger family wins?
I'm confused when it comes to the children example I don't understand how "do" refers to "have" I would think it was just referring to allergies. I sometimes struggle pointing out the referentials that are refering to another word and not a topic if that makes sense.
The grammar portion has fried my brain.
ouchy head
Parsing out the nesting phrase from a comparative statement is similar to parsing out the contextual information from an argument. Similar to context in relation in an argument, the nesting phrase is irrelevant to the comparative statement, but indeed relevant to the overall structure in which the comparative statement is placed.
Examples:
Preston thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
Skip Bayless thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
Some people think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.
So, no matter that the nesting phrase is, the comparison is between LeBron and Michael Jordan, and the point of comparison is better. Michael Jordan wins. This is true no matter what the nesting phrase is,
However, in relation to other parts of a passage or paragraph that the comparative statement has, the nesting phrase is important. For example, take the phrase “Skip Bayless thinks that MJ is better than LeBron.” And from information that is presented before that phrase, you know that I disagree with every single statement that Skip Bayless has ever uttered. You can now properly infer that I do not think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.