This is very similar to being able to derive the core of a clause (subject and predicate) from all the modifiers. The ability to extract modifiers quickly allows us to save precious time on the LSAT and focus on the core relationships that the LSAT is concerned with.
Let’s look at a basketball example:
Michael Jordan, a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the lates 1980s and into the early 2000s, is better (albeit only slightly) than the man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16, LeBron James.
Strip away the modifiers.
Michael Jordan, a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and into the early 2000s,is better (albeit, only slightly) thanthe man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16,LeBron James.
Michael Jordan is better than LeBron James.
A=MJ
B=LeBron
Point of comparison= who is better
Winner: MJ
Now, let’s imagine for some reason this statement was on the LSAT in a RC passage. The LSAT writers needed to devise some inference questions with this comparison statement for us to work through. How would they do that? Bring in the modifiers.
Let’s take the first few modifier that describes Michael Jordan as a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and early 2000s.
Without even reading the rest of the sentence, we can already make some inferences just based of these modifiers.
1. Some people who have won a NBA championship are worth a billion dollars.
2. A person who has won a finals MVP has won more than 5 championship.
3. Someone who was born before the 1980s is a billionaire.
4. There is a player who played for 10+ years in The NBA.
Now we can also devise fake inferences that would be a trick answer choice.
1. Winning 6 finals MVP causes you to be a billionaire.
2. If you are a billionaire then you win 6 championships.
3. MJ won a NBA championship in the 90s.
Now take the modifiers of LeBron.
The man who born from the Akron, Ohio who was named the “ chosen one” by sports illustrated at the age of 16.
Now we can make some inferences based off the comparison.
1. Being named the chosen one does guarantee you are the best player of all time.
2. There is someone that is a billionaire that is better at basketball than someone who was born in Ohio.
Bad inferences:
1. Sports illustrated doesn’t think MJ is better than LeBron.
2. LeBron is not a billionaire.
3. Michael Jordan was never named the “chosen one”
4. MJ was not born in Ohio.
5. LeBron did not play at the same time as MJ.
Now, some of these might be true in the real world, and some are. But, based off just the statement we are given these are not good inferences.
Notice something here, creating bad inferences is so much easier than creating good ones. So, if you can get good at predicting the few inferences that can be made from a statement(s) then you can easily work through the bad ones.
sometimes I hate seeing the estimated lesson time next to the lesson bc not even on mars would I read and retain all this info in 3 min lmfao, but I guess its still helpful. kinda tricks the brain into starting the lesson even if it takes longer
When you are actually studying or testing, how can you realistically break down sentences quickly enough so that you understand them and don’t get caught up by the complicated modifiers?
@Calibjamess I'm late to this but I think reading the news and nonfiction every day has genuinely helped me so much! I'm able to parse this sort of stuff almost instinctually because of how much I take in. That may be a more long-term thing though?
I did this without removing every modifier. I chose a middle ground. I only added the modifiers that seemed pertinent. In my mind, everything after "that" was too much information to process, so I removed it.
E.G.
1: Ancient Remedial Herbs v. Modern Synthetic Antibiotics
2: Retain effectiveness against new, resistant strains of bacteria
If I remove the modifiers and go through the steps, would I need to add those some modifiers back during the test, or can I move forward answering to save time?
I understand why dropping the modifiers is valuable to help unpack complex text, but in terms of efficiency and pace on the LSAT, is this the most efficient way to understand complex text? Or should we be able to read the sentence and instantly understand its meaning without dissecting it? I wonder if there is a correlation between what level of text requires a student to dissect in order to understand, as opposed to just instantly understanding it, and one's score on the LSAT.
I almost got mad before I finished watching questioning why we are adding the modifiers back in! But yes, removing them for the core comparison is helpful and then add them back in later. I like this.
@AichaCisse They're talking about a comparison. When you compare two things, one side is usually being described as having more of some quality ("winner")!
Although removing the modifiers helps to understand what's going on, it seems to be time consuming and would take away time for the test. I guess w/ practice it will become quicker and easier.
63 comments
This is very similar to being able to derive the core of a clause (subject and predicate) from all the modifiers. The ability to extract modifiers quickly allows us to save precious time on the LSAT and focus on the core relationships that the LSAT is concerned with.
Let’s look at a basketball example:
Michael Jordan, a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the lates 1980s and into the early 2000s, is better (albeit only slightly) than the man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16, LeBron James.
Strip away the modifiers.
Michael Jordan,
a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and into the early 2000s,is better(albeit, only slightly)thanthe man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16,LeBron James.Michael Jordan is better than LeBron James.
A=MJ
B=LeBron
Point of comparison= who is better
Winner: MJ
Now, let’s imagine for some reason this statement was on the LSAT in a RC passage. The LSAT writers needed to devise some inference questions with this comparison statement for us to work through. How would they do that? Bring in the modifiers.
Let’s take the first few modifier that describes Michael Jordan as a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and early 2000s.
Without even reading the rest of the sentence, we can already make some inferences just based of these modifiers.
1. Some people who have won a NBA championship are worth a billion dollars.
2. A person who has won a finals MVP has won more than 5 championship.
3. Someone who was born before the 1980s is a billionaire.
4. There is a player who played for 10+ years in The NBA.
Now we can also devise fake inferences that would be a trick answer choice.
1. Winning 6 finals MVP causes you to be a billionaire.
2. If you are a billionaire then you win 6 championships.
3. MJ won a NBA championship in the 90s.
Now take the modifiers of LeBron.
The man who born from the Akron, Ohio who was named the “ chosen one” by sports illustrated at the age of 16.
Now we can make some inferences based off the comparison.
1. Being named the chosen one does guarantee you are the best player of all time.
2. There is someone that is a billionaire that is better at basketball than someone who was born in Ohio.
Bad inferences:
1. Sports illustrated doesn’t think MJ is better than LeBron.
2. LeBron is not a billionaire.
3. Michael Jordan was never named the “chosen one”
4. MJ was not born in Ohio.
5. LeBron did not play at the same time as MJ.
Now, some of these might be true in the real world, and some are. But, based off just the statement we are given these are not good inferences.
Notice something here, creating bad inferences is so much easier than creating good ones. So, if you can get good at predicting the few inferences that can be made from a statement(s) then you can easily work through the bad ones.
this was so helpful, thank you!
Preston I think you are the chosen one
@21bvarzarevsky hes a paid actor
okay this was really helpful cause why they be saying ALL that
words make head ouch
7sage is so clutch with its grammar lessons
Demonstrating how removing modifiers can help us understand a comparative made me understand why we studied Clauses and modifiers
sometimes I hate seeing the estimated lesson time next to the lesson bc not even on mars would I read and retain all this info in 3 min lmfao, but I guess its still helpful. kinda tricks the brain into starting the lesson even if it takes longer
same (with 10 e's after it lol) - much relieved that I'm not the only one!
Same some concepts I have to read through multiple times because my brain is on low power mode
can we pls go back to the elephants lmao
How J.Y. just dropped all the modifiers is crazyyy. I'm trying to get like that lol!
Things are clicking!!
When you are actually studying or testing, how can you realistically break down sentences quickly enough so that you understand them and don’t get caught up by the complicated modifiers?
@Calibjamess I'm late to this but I think reading the news and nonfiction every day has genuinely helped me so much! I'm able to parse this sort of stuff almost instinctually because of how much I take in. That may be a more long-term thing though?
I did this without removing every modifier. I chose a middle ground. I only added the modifiers that seemed pertinent. In my mind, everything after "that" was too much information to process, so I removed it.
E.G.
1: Ancient Remedial Herbs v. Modern Synthetic Antibiotics
2: Retain effectiveness against new, resistant strains of bacteria
3: Ancient Remedial Herbs
I'm curious to see if anyone else did this.
Ya, I did the same thing.
oof that one was hard
Wonderful lesson!!
If I remove the modifiers and go through the steps, would I need to add those some modifiers back during the test, or can I move forward answering to save time?
@MR.Washington the latter.
I understand why dropping the modifiers is valuable to help unpack complex text, but in terms of efficiency and pace on the LSAT, is this the most efficient way to understand complex text? Or should we be able to read the sentence and instantly understand its meaning without dissecting it? I wonder if there is a correlation between what level of text requires a student to dissect in order to understand, as opposed to just instantly understanding it, and one's score on the LSAT.
so it's essentially getting to the kernel of the argument and then adding the modifiers to the kernel back in.
this saves me so much more time. NOW JUST PRACTICE
I almost got mad before I finished watching questioning why we are adding the modifiers back in! But yes, removing them for the core comparison is helpful and then add them back in later. I like this.
i love this method
By the winner you mean that will be the answer of the question asks?
@AichaCisse They're talking about a comparison. When you compare two things, one side is usually being described as having more of some quality ("winner")!
This is amazing. It helps me get rid of all the modifiers that would otherwise draw me away from the comparative argument.
This makes the passage much easier to read and understand
this really isnt that hard
Although removing the modifiers helps to understand what's going on, it seems to be time consuming and would take away time for the test. I guess w/ practice it will become quicker and easier.