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
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!
the comparison here is, "some cultivars of corn" to "most other cultivars of corn", is it not?
it's comparing different cultivars of corn.
being "more closely related morphologically to sorghum" is the comparison.
we don't know a specific winner other than, "some cultivars." there's still a winner, the argument just isn't specific about who.
i can't see how sorghum is on either side of the comparison here, other than through a rearrangement of terms that obfuscates the point of the argument rather than clarifying it (making it seem like the point of the argument is about sorghum rather than differences between cultivars of corn).
i trust that i'm wrong about this, but even writing this out - when i usually spot my mistake - i am not seeing it.
So this is kinda like an inversion of the shrimp problem right? Whereas we're comparing "some" shrimp and "other" shrimp vs all shrimp and other sea creatures, we would be comparing a specific sea creature vs "other" shrimp as to their relation to "some" shrimp.
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.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum (A) than they are to other cultivars of corn (B). I was pretty confused until I took a step back and realized the "than to" means the question is asking what "some cultivars of corn" are more closely related to - A or B, with the winner being A. This is different from the than questions we previously looked at. Kaizen101 explains it really well down below.
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 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
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.
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?
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?
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. :)
pay attention to the "than to", and you just realize, this sentence is simply comparing which one(sorghum and most other corn) is more related to the some corn.
It's like, the relationship between some corn and sorghum is stronger than some corn with most corn. so the A and B are Sorghum and Most Corn. the Quality they comparing is the retionship between them to Some corn..
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 sort of get it the more I think about it but this worries me for the actual test where I don't know the outcome. I like others in this comment section thought at first we were comparing some cultivars of corn vs most other cultivars of corn and what we were comparing on was which is more closely related to Sorghum. Can someone help me understand this better for future similar questions why this would be incorrect because my argument woudl be that this could also be correct?
1
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.
79 comments
Even after reading the comments I don't really get this one
This was confusing for me. I got confused on sorghum.
Sorghum is not being compared here... the comparison lies between SOME CULTIVARS OF CORN and MOST OHER CULTIVARS OF CORN
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
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.
woah woah woah, lost me on this one.
the comparison here is, "some cultivars of corn" to "most other cultivars of corn", is it not?
it's comparing different cultivars of corn.
being "more closely related morphologically to sorghum" is the comparison.
we don't know a specific winner other than, "some cultivars." there's still a winner, the argument just isn't specific about who.
i can't see how sorghum is on either side of the comparison here, other than through a rearrangement of terms that obfuscates the point of the argument rather than clarifying it (making it seem like the point of the argument is about sorghum rather than differences between cultivars of corn).
i trust that i'm wrong about this, but even writing this out - when i usually spot my mistake - i am not seeing it.
edit:
FWIW, i get it, i just hate it.
So this is kinda like an inversion of the shrimp problem right? Whereas we're comparing "some" shrimp and "other" shrimp vs all shrimp and other sea creatures, we would be comparing a specific sea creature vs "other" shrimp as to their relation to "some" shrimp.
that's kinda how I'm thinking of it anyway
I would say its comparing different cultivars of corn.
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.
I read Kaizen101's explanation and I'm afraid I still don't quite get how it's comparing sorghum and most other cultivars.
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum (A) than they are to other cultivars of corn (B). I was pretty confused until I took a step back and realized the "than to" means the question is asking what "some cultivars of corn" are more closely related to - A or B, with the winner being A. This is different from the than questions we previously looked at. Kaizen101 explains it really well down below.
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.
I said "some culivars of corn," so in a way, is this a trick question?
I would have said some cultivars of corn VS other cultivars of corn and the comparison is which look like sorghum.
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
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!
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?
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
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.
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. :)
pay attention to the "than to", and you just realize, this sentence is simply comparing which one(sorghum and most other corn) is more related to the some corn.
It's like, the relationship between some corn and sorghum is stronger than some corn with most corn. so the A and B are Sorghum and Most Corn. the Quality they comparing is the retionship between them to Some corn..
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 sort of get it the more I think about it but this worries me for the actual test where I don't know the outcome. I like others in this comment section thought at first we were comparing some cultivars of corn vs most other cultivars of corn and what we were comparing on was which is more closely related to Sorghum. Can someone help me understand this better for future similar questions why this would be incorrect because my argument woudl be that this could also be correct?