I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
I'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.
50
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!
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.
38 comments
I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.
whats a relata
I kind of get it. it seems as if in a relationship one can't exist without the other, did i get it right? it like an incomplete sentence. am I overthinking it?
:)
I'm curious how people prep'd for the LSAT like 20+ years ago??
i have a relationship with the LSAT. it's complicated
are anyone else's videos being weird? Like there isn't a play button
Isn’t the term “relata” the plural form of relatum? Then, why does the diagram show a relationship to be the connection between 2 separate “relata” and not “relatums?”
My mom is quite a lady, you are right, thank you
Hi! I'm studying for the November test to try and get into law school in 2026. Feel free to join my Discord for a study group and connecting! Btw - you're not cooked and you can do it! Praying for all of us fr https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
j.y. millennialing out with the hp reference
wow! this is literally the first time the types of relationships has been broken down to me AND ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. i am so excited for this course!!!!
Are you guys both watching the vid and reading the article on only one?
I'm rather confused about how "being in the USA is necessary for you to be in NY" isn't a sufficient answer? After all, you could be in Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, etc.
so if i reference my ex enough we'll be in a relationship again? got it.
A relationship is an abstract idea that exisits between 2 or more relata. The LSAT is full of relationships.
LSAT = Relata 1?
Full of relationships = Relata 2?
period
Dubs
good
yes
"quite a woman at that" had me dying LOL
J.Y.'s relationships are short, difficult and painful. The LSAT's relationships are much simpler. The abstract idea between two or more relata. Relationships are important. Relationships. Important.
Even though relationships is an abstract idea (not physical or concrete), a useful thinking exercise is to think of a relationship as a chain (linkage) connecting two things. For example, think of the relationships of a food chain.
We start at the bottom, grass ——grasshopper —— frog —— hawk —— fungi (decomposer). The physical line represents the relationship (predatory/prey).
Now, I think it’s important to notice that the line goes either way. If I start at frog, then I know the frog is the predator of the grasshopper. However, if I start at grasshopper, then I know the grasshopper is the prey of the frog. How we view relationship can depend on which relata is our starting point. In this relationship, the frog and grasshopper are exactly equal in their predatory/prey relationship, because one cannot exists without the other.
Also, I think this example is also great because it shows us that indirect relationships exist, for example, starting at grass, we can see there is only a direct relationship with the grasshopper, but we can infer a relationship with the hawk by following the linkages.