Is "do" really necessary in this example? The sentence can easily do without that referential word if it was framed as "..fewer allergies than children in small families".
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?
It seems that we are expected to make a judgment of what is consider to be the "quality" in our determination of the winner, is that correct? In this case, we are forced to think about whether the quality is having more or less allergies. The "winner" is not necessarily the side described as having "more"?
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.
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.
24 comments
This was so helpful did anyone else find this helpful?
@SarahShaver Probably the quickest I've ever understood a topic for the LSAT.
I guess this is true, I have 6 siblings and only I have allergies....
@AaronKamauJr you were going to be too cool as a lawyer, so you got nerfed </3 you'll still be a cool lawyer!! just with allergies HAHA
Researchers have found that children in large families generally have fewer allergies than do children in small families.
A vs. B
children in large families vs. children in small families
What is the relationship?
Which size of families have fewer allergies?
Winner?
children in large families generally have fewer allergies than do children in small families.
Is "do" really necessary in this example? The sentence can easily do without that referential word if it was framed as "..fewer allergies than children in small families".
P.S. No pun intended :)
@MatthewGhebredingle Correct. In my head cannon, its superfluous.
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.
yes, because you're still comparing two different groups. You'd just be comparing "allergies"
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?
It's just another way of saying, "Determine which side of the comparison has "more" (or less) of the quality."
It seems that we are expected to make a judgment of what is consider to be the "quality" in our determination of the winner, is that correct? In this case, we are forced to think about whether the quality is having more or less allergies. The "winner" is not necessarily the side described as having "more"?
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.
nevermind I read the explanation in further detail ;))))
The grammar portion has fried my brain.
@shanep8262 Same
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.
LePreston
This reply on a two year old comment is crazy
LePreston
My glorious king > MJ