@cworth1512 Hi! I initially thought the same on the A vs B portion. On second read, I think the biggest hint is in the wording "than to" before the mention of most other cultivars of corns. Linguistically, the comparison matches and pits against the wording of "to sorghum". So we're looking at closeness of some cultivars of corn TO sorghum vs TO most other cultivars of corn. It's almost an unsaid reference that the comparison always ties back to "some cultivars of corn" as the subject of our sentence and point of reference. I think using this reasoning at the start of our breakdown of A vs B will help the next two steps follow logically. Hopefully that makes sense!
i feel like to add the subject back in is really helpful and easier to understand, it's more like: "some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn to most other cultivars of corn."
then it's pretty clear to me that it's "sorghum" vs. "most other cultivars of corn"
If the second "to" is replaced by "do", the sentence will be like "Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than do most other cultivars of corn.". Then the meaning would change totally.
It's easy to break this one down into "Some cultivars" compared to "Most other cultivars." For anyone struggling with this, reanalyze what the main subject of the statement is. In this case, the subject is "some cultivars of corn" which is being compared against how closely some cultivars are related to sorghum, how closely they're related to most other cultivars of corn.
These comments helped, notedly the one which point out seeing a comparison is key even if it doesn't align exactly as the lesson shows. The instructor pointed out the john and kate example which I translated as such:
Some cultivars of corn relationship to sorghum.
Some cultivars of corn relationship with most other cultivars of corn.
So it'd be sorghum vs. most other cultivars of corn because Some Cultivars is the constant here when comparing the two. They are NOT being compared against each other, but are being compared on how they each relate to Some Cultivars.
Even with my explaining its still hard to see it that way, I want to resort back to Some cultivars vs. Most other cultivars and which is closer to sorghum. But I can force myself to think that logically it all i can answer for sure with the information given is that Some Cultivars are closer. There's no info stated about the closeness to anything else.
I’m so glad I wasn’t the only one who thought it was “some cultivars of corn” vs “other cultivars of corn”.
I think it really boils down to the use of “THAN TO most other cultivars of corn” which indicates we’re comparing the preceding option A: sorghum to the following option B: other cultivars of corn.
If it read “THAN most other cultivars of corn” it would indicate option A: some cultivars of corn vs option B: most other cultivars of corn.
The inclusion of the word “to” does a lot of heavy lifting and highlights the importance of picking up those key words.
I think much of the confusion expressed in the comments is from misunderstanding/glossing over the referential "to," which refers to "some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically." The video glosses over that importance as well. If it had said "than are most other cultivars" then the comparison "some corn" vs "other corn" would be the logically correct one, which understandably is what a lot of us thought
In the example: Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
I am seeing SOME CULTIVARS vs OTHER CULTIVARS and comparing to being more closely related to MORPHOLOGICALLY TO SORGHUM. I am not seeing : sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn.
After reading the comments, the instructor keeps using this example:
John is closer to Kate than to Mary.
What are the two things being compared? John vs. Mary? Or Kate vs. Mary?
I see it as this : Who is closer to KATE, John or Mary. John is closer to kate, John has shorter distance to Kate than Mary. JOHN vs MARY.
What are the triggers to seeing the comparison as Sorghum? I don't understand.
@LexiCarter "John is closer to Kate than to Mary" compares the following:
John's distance to Kate
John's distance to Mary
The first is shorter than the second. But it doesn't tell us anything about how close Kate and Mary are to each other.
Kate vs. Mary -- who is closer to John? That's what the sentence is about.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
Some cultivars' morphological distance to sorghum
Some cultivars' morphological distance to most other cultivars
The first is shorter (closer) than the second. But we don't know anything about how closely related sorghum is to most other corn cultivars.
If it helps, you might think about 3 points in space -- A, B, and C.
A is closer to B than to C.
That means the distance between A and B is shorter than the distance between A and C. But we don't know anything about how far B and C are from each other. They might be very close, and so A B and C would form a very narrow triangle. Or B and C might be very far apart from each other and you'd have a very wide, big triangle.
This was so hard for me omg but it was really just the mistake of reading the question too quickly. "Than to" is the trick. My example sentence was "some girls are much more closely related genetically to flamingos than to most other girls." Obviously silly but the "than to" is what I missed. We're measuring the group "some cultivars" on their relation morphologically to sorgum than "some cultivars" relation to most other cultivars.
@MateoAgudelo yeah I broke it down as some cultivars of corns vs most other cultivars of corn. And the comparison would be which are more closely related morphologically to sorghum.
This makes no sense. It is comparing some cultivars to others, not sorghum to other cultivars. Based on what the sentence says literally, the comparison is which is more closely related to sorghum, so how could it be possible that sorghum is one of the things being compared??
i don't believe that for those of us that had the argument being "some cultivars" v "most cultivars" is 'wrong'. i think the most important part of these exercises is to understand WHY it would be "sorghum v most other cultivars", and to be able to have a reasoning for that logic. as long as you understand the baseline objects being compared (some cultivars v others, sorghum v others), then the conclusion for the most part is the same; we all agree that (some cultivars or sorghum) is closer related morphologically than most other cultivars. Some/sorghum v most other cultivars of corn. tomato tamatoe
@ChrisMcGrew They should really highlight your comment, because you are correct. There are simply two ways to read this sentence, and both will get you to the same conclusion. Neither version is "wrong." They should clarify that, and your comment should have way more upvotes.
For this type of question, I was also confused about whether we were comparing species of corn together rather than Sorghum v. Other species. My understanding is to try thinking of another example: "Circles are more round than flat."
Step 1: What are we comparing? Circles v. flatness?
No, circles are merely the object we do the comparison on (Same role "Some cultivars of corn..." plays).
We compare roundness v. flatness, the way that sorghum is compared in proximity than "...most other cultivars...".
Step 2: What are we comparing? Whichever trait circles are more closely related to, same as proximity to "Some cultivars...".
I've found that the way the sentence is structured is confusing. Rephrasing it as "Sorghum is much more closely related to some cultivars of corn than to most other cultivars of corn." can help see a bit better.
Step 3: What is the winner? Roundness/Sorghum. Hopefully this helps you as well!
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.
107 comments
I think the secret is to just look for than. thats it and bam
can someone explain how this is not correct?
Identify A & B
A: Some cultivars of corn
B: Most cultivars of corn
What we're comparing them on:
morphological closeness to sorghum
Identify the winner
some cultivars of corn
I know I'm not thinking about it correctly, but I also cannot find the rationale that adjusts my logic here.
@cworth1512 Hi! I initially thought the same on the A vs B portion. On second read, I think the biggest hint is in the wording "than to" before the mention of most other cultivars of corns. Linguistically, the comparison matches and pits against the wording of "to sorghum". So we're looking at closeness of some cultivars of corn TO sorghum vs TO most other cultivars of corn. It's almost an unsaid reference that the comparison always ties back to "some cultivars of corn" as the subject of our sentence and point of reference. I think using this reasoning at the start of our breakdown of A vs B will help the next two steps follow logically. Hopefully that makes sense!
@ckilk tysm!!
i feel like to add the subject back in is really helpful and easier to understand, it's more like: "some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn to most other cultivars of corn."
then it's pretty clear to me that it's "sorghum" vs. "most other cultivars of corn"
"sorghum" wins.
@xzhang22 ty!! v helpful!
If the second "to" is replaced by "do", the sentence will be like "Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than do most other cultivars of corn.". Then the meaning would change totally.
This has been my favorite grammar exercise yet. Breaking down comparatives has been my favorite part of the whole unit
It's easy to break this one down into "Some cultivars" compared to "Most other cultivars." For anyone struggling with this, reanalyze what the main subject of the statement is. In this case, the subject is "some cultivars of corn" which is being compared against how closely some cultivars are related to sorghum, how closely they're related to most other cultivars of corn.
Love this it’s so informative
These comments helped, notedly the one which point out seeing a comparison is key even if it doesn't align exactly as the lesson shows. The instructor pointed out the john and kate example which I translated as such:
Some cultivars of corn relationship to sorghum.
Some cultivars of corn relationship with most other cultivars of corn.
So it'd be sorghum vs. most other cultivars of corn because Some Cultivars is the constant here when comparing the two. They are NOT being compared against each other, but are being compared on how they each relate to Some Cultivars.
Even with my explaining its still hard to see it that way, I want to resort back to Some cultivars vs. Most other cultivars and which is closer to sorghum. But I can force myself to think that logically it all i can answer for sure with the information given is that Some Cultivars are closer. There's no info stated about the closeness to anything else.
I’m so glad I wasn’t the only one who thought it was “some cultivars of corn” vs “other cultivars of corn”.
I think it really boils down to the use of “THAN TO most other cultivars of corn” which indicates we’re comparing the preceding option A: sorghum to the following option B: other cultivars of corn.
If it read “THAN most other cultivars of corn” it would indicate option A: some cultivars of corn vs option B: most other cultivars of corn.
The inclusion of the word “to” does a lot of heavy lifting and highlights the importance of picking up those key words.
I think much of the confusion expressed in the comments is from misunderstanding/glossing over the referential "to," which refers to "some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically." The video glosses over that importance as well. If it had said "than are most other cultivars" then the comparison "some corn" vs "other corn" would be the logically correct one, which understandably is what a lot of us thought
Such an awful sentence i hate it so bad
Wow, am I glad I came to the comments...
Yeah this one threw me for a loop. I really thought it was some cultivars of corn versus other cultivars of corn.
@LawyeRell Same
In the example: Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
I am seeing SOME CULTIVARS vs OTHER CULTIVARS and comparing to being more closely related to MORPHOLOGICALLY TO SORGHUM. I am not seeing : sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn.
After reading the comments, the instructor keeps using this example:
What are the two things being compared? John vs. Mary? Or Kate vs. Mary?
I see it as this : Who is closer to KATE, John or Mary. John is closer to kate, John has shorter distance to Kate than Mary. JOHN vs MARY.
What are the triggers to seeing the comparison as Sorghum? I don't understand.
@LexiCarter "John is closer to Kate than to Mary" compares the following:
John's distance to Kate
John's distance to Mary
The first is shorter than the second. But it doesn't tell us anything about how close Kate and Mary are to each other.
Kate vs. Mary -- who is closer to John? That's what the sentence is about.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
Some cultivars' morphological distance to sorghum
Some cultivars' morphological distance to most other cultivars
The first is shorter (closer) than the second. But we don't know anything about how closely related sorghum is to most other corn cultivars.
If it helps, you might think about 3 points in space -- A, B, and C.
A is closer to B than to C.
That means the distance between A and B is shorter than the distance between A and C. But we don't know anything about how far B and C are from each other. They might be very close, and so A B and C would form a very narrow triangle. Or B and C might be very far apart from each other and you'd have a very wide, big triangle.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
A v. B
Sorghum vs. most other cultivars of corn.
What is the relationship we are comparing these two?
Which one is more closely related morphologically to some cultivars of corn vs most other cultivars of corn?
Winner?
Sorghum.
Cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
This was so hard for me omg but it was really just the mistake of reading the question too quickly. "Than to" is the trick. My example sentence was "some girls are much more closely related genetically to flamingos than to most other girls." Obviously silly but the "than to" is what I missed. We're measuring the group "some cultivars" on their relation morphologically to sorgum than "some cultivars" relation to most other cultivars.
Why is it that when I pause to read, my screen goes blank. Super annoying, anyone else have that issue?
When you see “more X to A than to B,” the comparison is between A and B, not between two versions of the subject.
If “than” repeats the preposition (“to,” “for,” “with”), the comparison is between the objects — not the subject.
Even after reading the comments I don't really get this one
This was confusing for me. I got confused on sorghum.
@PranjalChaudhary I thought the comparison would be on the basis of who is more closely related to Sorghum
Sorghum is not being compared here... the comparison lies between SOME CULTIVARS OF CORN and MOST OHER CULTIVARS OF CORN
@MateoAgudelo thanks it wasn't making any sense to me. This section seems overly complicated.
@MateoAgudelo yeah I broke it down as some cultivars of corns vs most other cultivars of corn. And the comparison would be which are more closely related morphologically to sorghum.
@MateoAgudelo thank u i was tweaked over this
@MateoAgudelo
What are the two things being compared? John vs. Mary? Or Kate vs. Mary?
This makes no sense. It is comparing some cultivars to others, not sorghum to other cultivars. Based on what the sentence says literally, the comparison is which is more closely related to sorghum, so how could it be possible that sorghum is one of the things being compared??
@IsabellaErgh I'm seeing this exactly as you are.
i don't believe that for those of us that had the argument being "some cultivars" v "most cultivars" is 'wrong'. i think the most important part of these exercises is to understand WHY it would be "sorghum v most other cultivars", and to be able to have a reasoning for that logic. as long as you understand the baseline objects being compared (some cultivars v others, sorghum v others), then the conclusion for the most part is the same; we all agree that (some cultivars or sorghum) is closer related morphologically than most other cultivars. Some/sorghum v most other cultivars of corn. tomato tamatoe
@ChrisMcGrew They should really highlight your comment, because you are correct. There are simply two ways to read this sentence, and both will get you to the same conclusion. Neither version is "wrong." They should clarify that, and your comment should have way more upvotes.
@ChrisMcGrew
What are the two things being compared? John vs. Mary? Or Kate vs. Mary?
For this type of question, I was also confused about whether we were comparing species of corn together rather than Sorghum v. Other species. My understanding is to try thinking of another example: "Circles are more round than flat."
Step 1: What are we comparing? Circles v. flatness?
No, circles are merely the object we do the comparison on (Same role "Some cultivars of corn..." plays).
We compare roundness v. flatness, the way that sorghum is compared in proximity than "...most other cultivars...".
Step 2: What are we comparing? Whichever trait circles are more closely related to, same as proximity to "Some cultivars...".
I've found that the way the sentence is structured is confusing. Rephrasing it as "Sorghum is much more closely related to some cultivars of corn than to most other cultivars of corn." can help see a bit better.
Step 3: What is the winner? Roundness/Sorghum. Hopefully this helps you as well!
This one made no sense. I swear this looks like we are comparing cultivars of corn and NOT sorghum. I get it. But it made my brain explode.