The key phrase here is "than to". Note this is not the same implication as "than"
Consider these:
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum thanthey areto other cultivars of corn. - This asks: which of these is some cultivars of corn more closely related to? Sorghum or other cultivars of corn?"
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than other cultivars of corn. - Now this asks a different question: which is more closely related to sorghum? Some cultivars of corn or other cultivars of corn.
Sheesh, not gonna lie ... this one isn't adding up in my brain. :/
I had the A v. B as Some Cultivars of Corn v. Most Cultivars of Corn with the characteristic being which one much more related to closely related morphologically to sorghum.
I think the sentence here is comparing: 'Some cultivars of corn' v 'Most other cultivars of corn' and it is comparing the fact 'How closely they are morphologically related to sorghum'.
Please reply if anyone has a different perspective on this.
I made this mistake, but after rereading the sentence it became clear to me.
The sentence is explaining how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "sorghum" and how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "most other cultivators of corn".
The sentence here is comparing "sorghum" and "most other cultivators of corn". Hence why those are your A v. B here.
If you take "Some cultivators of corn" and "most other cultivators of corn" as your A v. B here, what are you comparing them against? Nowhere in the sentence does "most other cultivators of corn" get compared to "sorghum". Therefore, it becomes impossible to accomplish step 2 in this case.
I thought that too (at least at first), but then I paused and looked at their diagram and I thought about if A v. B was some cultivars v. most cultivars then it wouldn't really make sense if most cultivars ever "won" in step 3 → from how I read the sentence, most cultivars or corn is never being compared with sorghum. Kind of a half-baked thought, but I'm hoping it might help a little. If anyone can offer additional #help that would be great
this is a great explanation...thank you!! I was struggling with the answer provided for step 2, but the way you explained the quality/characteristic of comparison makes perfect sense.
it helped me to create new names for the corn. Example is lets call some types of corn "crazy corn" and other types of corn "happy corn." The sentence is saying that crazy corn more closely resembles sorghum than it resembles happy corn
While this was my line of thinking as well, I reviewed Kaizen101's answer below which made it a bit more clear.
While we both successfully associated "some cultivars of corn" with "more closely related to sorghum," I think this may lead to incorrect answers depending on the question. Especially after the clarification of "than" vs "than to."
@Sameer_Ahamad Yeah I was thinking the same thing. 1. some cultivars vs. other cultivars 2. their proximity to sorghum 3. some cultivars. I think the reason this is wrong is because some vs. others isn't specific and there isn't a real "winner". However I also think that as long as this strategy is helping you better understand the sentence, their answer doesn't really matter.
@Sameer_Ahamad i think the phrase "than to" does a lot of the heavy lifting to indicate that we are comparing sorghum vs. most other cultivars of corn in their relation to some cultivars of corn. I think if that phrase was instead "than are," then we would be comparing corn cultivars
@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’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 translated it in my mind to be "Purple cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to red cultivars of corn." Maybe its just me, but eliminating "some" and "most" helps to simplify the sentence.
@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.
Are we not comparing some cultivars of corn vs. other cultivars of corn and comparing them on how morphologically related they are to sorghum? The answer being some cultivars of corn are more related than the other cultivars of corn?
So my understanding is that we have 3 things, we are comparing A to B, and A to C. In here we are looking at which of B and C is A closer related to. I think the wording makes it confusing but if you replace them with symbols, you see that we are essentially comparing B to C, instead of just A to B or A to C, because A is the mutual factor that we can "erase".
Hopefully, this breakdown will help someone make sense of understanding Step 1 A v. B in the lesson sentence. I think a really good thought exercise to do would be to try and compare the following two sentences. Disclaimer: I had some support from ChatGPT to explain the nuances but came up with both examples and broad strokes myself, any corrections are greatly appreciated:
1. A is much more closely related to B than to C.
2. A is much more closely related to B than C.
Using what we've learned about translating abstraction, I changed it to people:
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
Understanding the relationships in each sentence may help to clarify its meaning and ambiguities.
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
The first sentence clearly states that Dave has a closer relation to Jessica than to Robert. So the comparison lies between Jessica and Robert as stated explicitly by the "to" which repeats in the sentence. The "to" highlight the relationships:
Dave → Jessica & Dave → Robert.
Therefore, we are comparing Jessica and Robert's closeness to Dave.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
The second sentence however can either imply Dave's relationship to Jessica v. Robert or imply Dave and Robert's relationship to Jessica. As we are missing that explicit relational indicator "to", we will likely assume that the comparison lies between Dave and Robert.
Bringing it back to the lesson, hopefully, it makes it clear as to why the A v. B is "sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn".
Note: What I noticed in doing the lesson exercise is I initially forgot about the "than to" so it made understanding the relationships confusing. Hopefully, this will help someone in their studies. :)
Hi! I am a little confused on this example. I am wondering if it would make sense to say that the object clause is asking us to compare some cultivars of corn to most cultivars of corn, with the question being "which is more closely related to sorghum? Obviously the winner is some cultivars of corn. Thanks!
I'm pretty new to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that:
If A is "Some cultivars of corn", B is "sorghum", and C is "most other cultivars of corn", the sentence is saying: A is more related to B than it is related to C. So the comparison is between B and C, not A, which gives us "sorghum" and "most other cultivars of corn".
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.
I wonder what level of difficulty this question is/would be on the LSAT. The idea of breaking this down and analyzing is daunting when there is a time limit to answer the question. Hoping that these get easier to do over time with practice, because I could see some weird comparative question (with additional analytical complexity) taking me forever to do in my head.
What helped me understand the sentence was noticing that
A is much more closely related to B than to C
- In this case, A is some cultivars of corn. B is sorghum. C is most cultivars of corn.
The sentence explicity told us A is more closely related to B. So, if there is anything for us to problem solve, it must be the relationship between B and C. If this is the case, then what quality are we comparing on? A (some cultivars of corn).
But what about some cultivars of corn? We need a more specific trait? It's color, it's density, its growth rate? No, the sentence tells us it's morphological relativity.
So, between B and C, which is more morphologically related to A?
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.
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.
This example was confusing to me, but understanding the words "than" + "to" as referential is how I understand it.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are closely related morphologically to most other cultivars of corn.
Writing it in this manner makes it much more clear what is being compared, if this thinking is correct lol
117 comments
The key phrase here is "than to". Note this is not the same implication as "than"
Consider these:
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than they are to other cultivars of corn. - This asks: which of these is some cultivars of corn more closely related to? Sorghum or other cultivars of corn?"
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than other cultivars of corn. - Now this asks a different question: which is more closely related to sorghum? Some cultivars of corn or other cultivars of corn.
Our video asks the first question using "than to"
Hope this helps!
Oh wow, this was incredibly helpful- I kept reading it over and over and my brain kept skipping the "to"! Might be time for a study break lol.
I was confused initially, but this helped me understand it better I really appreciate it!
Replacing the referential with the referent made it incredibly clear. Thank you.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than they are to other cultivars of corn.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are to other cultivars of corn.
This is key!!! Thank you for pointing this out!
@Kaizen101 this saved me thank you
Sheesh, not gonna lie ... this one isn't adding up in my brain. :/
I had the A v. B as Some Cultivars of Corn v. Most Cultivars of Corn with the characteristic being which one much more related to closely related morphologically to sorghum.
Thats what I am thinking too.
I think the sentence here is comparing: 'Some cultivars of corn' v 'Most other cultivars of corn' and it is comparing the fact 'How closely they are morphologically related to sorghum'.
Please reply if anyone has a different perspective on this.
I think the comment below gives a good explanation to this dilemma.
Thats what I had as well... a bit lost with this one too
I made this mistake, but after rereading the sentence it became clear to me.
The sentence is explaining how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "sorghum" and how "closely related morphologically" "some cultivators of corn" are to "most other cultivators of corn".
The sentence here is comparing "sorghum" and "most other cultivators of corn". Hence why those are your A v. B here.
If you take "Some cultivators of corn" and "most other cultivators of corn" as your A v. B here, what are you comparing them against? Nowhere in the sentence does "most other cultivators of corn" get compared to "sorghum". Therefore, it becomes impossible to accomplish step 2 in this case.
Same, I made the same mistake.
yeah same
I thought that too (at least at first), but then I paused and looked at their diagram and I thought about if A v. B was some cultivars v. most cultivars then it wouldn't really make sense if most cultivars ever "won" in step 3 → from how I read the sentence, most cultivars or corn is never being compared with sorghum. Kind of a half-baked thought, but I'm hoping it might help a little. If anyone can offer additional #help that would be great
this is a great explanation...thank you!! I was struggling with the answer provided for step 2, but the way you explained the quality/characteristic of comparison makes perfect sense.
it helped me to create new names for the corn. Example is lets call some types of corn "crazy corn" and other types of corn "happy corn." The sentence is saying that crazy corn more closely resembles sorghum than it resembles happy corn
I struggled a lot to make sense of this until I subbed in the variables for more common things.
1.- Andy looks more like his mom than to his dad.
Who does Andy look like more? His mom or dad? Mom winner
2.- Andy looks more like his mom than his sister.
Who looks more like their mom? Andy or his sister? Andy winner
A little more complex example similar to the one in the lesson:
1.- Red Watermelon is more related to sorghum than to other kinds of watermelon
RW 50% relation to sorghum
RW 20% relation to other kinds of watermelon
Which variable is more related to Red Watermelon? Sorghum winner.
2.- Red Watermelon is more related to sorghum than are most kinds of watermelon.
Sorghum relation to RW 50%
Sorgum relation to Non-RW 15%
Which variable is more related to sorghum? RW winner.
Thank you for this! Helped me a lot
Really helpful ty!
Thank you
The red watermelon example with the percentages was super helpful thank you
Yeah this one threw me for a loop. I really thought it was some cultivars of corn versus other cultivars of corn.
@LawyeRell Same
I would have said some cultivars of corn VS other cultivars of corn and the comparison is which look like sorghum.
Me too!!!!
Me too. I'd like to know if this interpretation is necessarily wrong.
that's what I did as well. I think what JY did made it more complicated than it needed to be.
While this was my line of thinking as well, I reviewed Kaizen101's answer below which made it a bit more clear.
While we both successfully associated "some cultivars of corn" with "more closely related to sorghum," I think this may lead to incorrect answers depending on the question. Especially after the clarification of "than" vs "than to."
See Kaizen101's reply. Hope that helps.
I would say its comparing different cultivars of corn.
@Sameer_Ahamad Yeah I was thinking the same thing. 1. some cultivars vs. other cultivars 2. their proximity to sorghum 3. some cultivars. I think the reason this is wrong is because some vs. others isn't specific and there isn't a real "winner". However I also think that as long as this strategy is helping you better understand the sentence, their answer doesn't really matter.
@Sameer_Ahamad i think the phrase "than to" does a lot of the heavy lifting to indicate that we are comparing sorghum vs. most other cultivars of corn in their relation to some cultivars of corn. I think if that phrase was instead "than are," then we would be comparing corn cultivars
@paulding77 This distinction helps so much
@Sameer_Ahamad this is exactly what I thought and I stand by it as having clarified the meaning for me.
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’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.
Such an awful sentence i hate it so bad
I translated it in my mind to be "Purple cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to red cultivars of corn." Maybe its just me, but eliminating "some" and "most" helps to simplify the sentence.
This one confused me!
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?
Are we not comparing some cultivars of corn vs. other cultivars of corn and comparing them on how morphologically related they are to sorghum? The answer being some cultivars of corn are more related than the other cultivars of corn?
So my understanding is that we have 3 things, we are comparing A to B, and A to C. In here we are looking at which of B and C is A closer related to. I think the wording makes it confusing but if you replace them with symbols, you see that we are essentially comparing B to C, instead of just A to B or A to C, because A is the mutual factor that we can "erase".
We wouldn't be comparing "Some cultivars of corn vs. other cultivars of corn" because the comparative word is "than to."
If you took the argument apart:
subject- noun: Some cultivars of corn
modifier: are much more closelypredicate verb: related morphologically to
Object: sorghum "than to"
Another object: most other cultivars of corn.
if you took out "sorghum," the sentence also wouldn't make sense
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically than to most cultivars of corn.
In this sentence, there would be no "winner", this simply be a clause.
At least this is how I broke it down to understand it.
i think the sentence is pretty ambiguously written tbh.
I think the secret is to just look for than. thats it and bam
@Matt.bartos this is huge for the program
Hopefully, this breakdown will help someone make sense of understanding Step 1 A v. B in the lesson sentence. I think a really good thought exercise to do would be to try and compare the following two sentences. Disclaimer: I had some support from ChatGPT to explain the nuances but came up with both examples and broad strokes myself, any corrections are greatly appreciated:
1. A is much more closely related to B than to C.
2. A is much more closely related to B than C.
Using what we've learned about translating abstraction, I changed it to people:
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
Understanding the relationships in each sentence may help to clarify its meaning and ambiguities.
1. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than to Robert.
The first sentence clearly states that Dave has a closer relation to Jessica than to Robert. So the comparison lies between Jessica and Robert as stated explicitly by the "to" which repeats in the sentence. The "to" highlight the relationships:
Dave → Jessica & Dave → Robert.
Therefore, we are comparing Jessica and Robert's closeness to Dave.
2. Dave is much more closely related to Jessica than Robert.
The second sentence however can either imply Dave's relationship to Jessica v. Robert or imply Dave and Robert's relationship to Jessica. As we are missing that explicit relational indicator "to", we will likely assume that the comparison lies between Dave and Robert.
Bringing it back to the lesson, hopefully, it makes it clear as to why the A v. B is "sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn".
Note: What I noticed in doing the lesson exercise is I initially forgot about the "than to" so it made understanding the relationships confusing. Hopefully, this will help someone in their studies. :)
This was super helpful! Thank you!!!
thank you!
Hi! I am a little confused on this example. I am wondering if it would make sense to say that the object clause is asking us to compare some cultivars of corn to most cultivars of corn, with the question being "which is more closely related to sorghum? Obviously the winner is some cultivars of corn. Thanks!
I'm pretty new to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that:
If A is "Some cultivars of corn", B is "sorghum", and C is "most other cultivars of corn", the sentence is saying: A is more related to B than it is related to C. So the comparison is between B and C, not A, which gives us "sorghum" and "most other cultivars of corn".
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.
I wonder what level of difficulty this question is/would be on the LSAT. The idea of breaking this down and analyzing is daunting when there is a time limit to answer the question. Hoping that these get easier to do over time with practice, because I could see some weird comparative question (with additional analytical complexity) taking me forever to do in my head.
What helped me understand the sentence was noticing that
A is much more closely related to B than to C
- In this case, A is some cultivars of corn. B is sorghum. C is most cultivars of corn.
The sentence explicity told us A is more closely related to B. So, if there is anything for us to problem solve, it must be the relationship between B and C. If this is the case, then what quality are we comparing on? A (some cultivars of corn).
But what about some cultivars of corn? We need a more specific trait? It's color, it's density, its growth rate? No, the sentence tells us it's morphological relativity.
So, between B and C, which is more morphologically related to A?
B, sorghum is.
Thank you!
I'm glad this is here because I surely didn't get it the first time it was explained 😅
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.
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.
@VanillaCat this made me realize that my gap was also in the phrase 'than to' !
This example was confusing to me, but understanding the words "than" + "to" as referential is how I understand it.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are closely related morphologically to most other cultivars of corn.
Writing it in this manner makes it much more clear what is being compared, if this thinking is correct lol
I'm having a hard time understanding why A and B are not some corn and other corn and instead is sorghum v. most other cultivars of corn. #help
same, I had the same process. commenting to see others responses
look at the comment below for an explanation on this!
Even after reading the comments I don't really get this one