I don't understand how we could be comparing "accustomed to" and "now" when the verb maintained is in a simple past form. Without more context, we can be comparing recent events but nothing indicates current events.
Okay so I got #5 wrong when I answered it on my own. Here's my attempt to understand it after watching the video.
At least 59 percent of households [this is what "they" refers to] maintained a lower indoor temperature [in the present/now] than they [the 59 percent of households] had been accustomed to maintain [at some time in the past/not now] on very cold days [context for when the comparison applies].
I think what is confusing about this sentence is the fact that we are comparing two points in time which are ambiguous. Let's replace the temporal components with specific moments in time and all of a sudden it becomes much more clear what is happening.
At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature in the past three weeks than they had been accustomed to maintain in the three weeks prior on very cold days.
2. Maintaining a lower indoor temperature than accustomed to on a very cold day,
3. Most households.
I read through a bit of the discussion and it kinda seems like I'm the only one that didn't opt to compare their comfort, and I definitely did not realize that it was a comparison of accustomed to versus now. In hindsight it makes sense, but I seriously thought I was cooking. I think the percentage of households slipped me up, which I realize was probably the intention of writing it like that.
I got the others ones correct though, so not a total loss. I'm still working on understanding the more vague and abstract ways of writing these questions. I feel like number 5 was a good example of how abstract it could be, so its good practice.
When doing the "swing" on the comparative in Question 1, would you insert "more further advanced" into the original comparative, and then use "less further advanced?" I know the grammar isn't exactly right with both of those but if you do the "swing" for question 1 that would read "not further advanced" which would then mean that you've made it so they could be equal. I could be overthinking it or just can't think of the antonym for further lol.
I watched the video and stared at #5 for 10 minutes and I still dont understand how they got the correct answer. Just gonna skip that for now and pray thats not important lol
For #5, I compared very cold days to not very cold days with the quality being maintaining lower indoor temperature. Winner was non cold days. Would this be ok?
#5 literally short circuited my brain comforting to know I'm not alone! inference comparisons really though how can you assume now v accustomed rather than accustomed v not accustomed? or accustomed v outliner ??
A source of confusion for me is how the term "on very cold days" is interpreted in question 5.
Could the sentence be rephrased
(A) "On very cold days, at least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature than they had been accustomed to maintain"?
Or
(B) must the "on very cold days" be read only as part "accustomed to maintain on very cold days"
This would change the meaning of the sentence. If we interpreted it as A, then it would mean that the comparison looks like this:
very cold days vs accustomed to (assumption: on not very cold days)
indoor temperature (which is lower?)
winner: very cold days
i.e. The indoor temperature on very cold days is lower (for 59% of households) than the indoor temperature they are accustomed to (assumed, on not very cold days)
If we interpret it as B, then the comparison goes like:
Accustomed to (descriptive: on very cold days) vs. Now
indoor temperature (which is lower?)
winner: Now
i.e. The indoor temperature is lower Now (for 59% of households) than they are Accustomed to on very cold days
My problem is that this grammar leaves room for error in how we understand "on very cold days". Is it a descriptor, which narrows our understanding of "accustomed to" to mean only "what they are accustomed to only on very cold days (but not what they are accustomed to on days that are not very cold)" or does it modify the entirety of the sentence and thus make the comparison very cold days vs what households were accustomed to (on not very cold days)?
Both my interpretation (A) and the interpretation in the video (B) require us to make an assumption. (A) makes the assumption that "accustomed to" implies "on not very cold days." (B) makes the assumption that we are comparing "accustomed to on very cold days" to "now." The assumption in (B) seems to me like a greater leap than the assumption in (A), making (A) a more reasonable way to read it.
Am I misunderstanding a grammar rule that would eliminate the possibility to interpret the sentence as (A)? Would there have to be a comma after "maintain" in order to read it this way?
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.
133 comments
this made my brain hurt
Number 5 confuses me
I don't understand how we could be comparing "accustomed to" and "now" when the verb maintained is in a simple past form. Without more context, we can be comparing recent events but nothing indicates current events.
can someone please explain Question 5...
last one hurt my head bro
Okay so I got #5 wrong when I answered it on my own. Here's my attempt to understand it after watching the video.
At least 59 percent of households [this is what "they" refers to] maintained a lower indoor temperature [in the present/now] than they [the 59 percent of households] had been accustomed to maintain [at some time in the past/not now] on very cold days [context for when the comparison applies].
I think what is confusing about this sentence is the fact that we are comparing two points in time which are ambiguous. Let's replace the temporal components with specific moments in time and all of a sudden it becomes much more clear what is happening.
At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature in the past three weeks than they had been accustomed to maintain in the three weeks prior on very cold days.
Make more sense?
Can someone breakdown #5 for me? I'm beyond confused...
5th one violates Genva convention.
For question 5 I put:
1. Most households versus some households,
2. Maintaining a lower indoor temperature than accustomed to on a very cold day,
3. Most households.
I read through a bit of the discussion and it kinda seems like I'm the only one that didn't opt to compare their comfort, and I definitely did not realize that it was a comparison of accustomed to versus now. In hindsight it makes sense, but I seriously thought I was cooking. I think the percentage of households slipped me up, which I realize was probably the intention of writing it like that.
I got the others ones correct though, so not a total loss. I'm still working on understanding the more vague and abstract ways of writing these questions. I feel like number 5 was a good example of how abstract it could be, so its good practice.
FIRST 5/5 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FPREVER YAYAYAYAAA
the 5th one is diabolical
For Q5, I don;t know why but I really am a bit confused with what this is saying. So I thought of another way to think of the two comparisons to be
not had been accustomed to maintain
vs
accustomed to maintain
would this be a fair way to interpret it the sentence?
When doing the "swing" on the comparative in Question 1, would you insert "more further advanced" into the original comparative, and then use "less further advanced?" I know the grammar isn't exactly right with both of those but if you do the "swing" for question 1 that would read "not further advanced" which would then mean that you've made it so they could be equal. I could be overthinking it or just can't think of the antonym for further lol.
I watched the video and stared at #5 for 10 minutes and I still dont understand how they got the correct answer. Just gonna skip that for now and pray thats not important lol
I don't like question 5. please burn it.
Why puppies? I love puppies.
For #5, I compared very cold days to not very cold days with the quality being maintaining lower indoor temperature. Winner was non cold days. Would this be ok?
Correcting any damage resulting from an invasion by a computer virus program is more expensive than preventing the damage.
Being compared: Correcting vs Preventing
Quality: Invasion by a computer virus
Winner: Correcting I am a bit confused on the quality part for this question, could anyone help?
#5 literally short circuited my brain comforting to know I'm not alone! inference comparisons really though how can you assume now v accustomed rather than accustomed v not accustomed? or accustomed v outliner ??
@j.y would this be answered good way for the last question
At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature than they had been accustomed to maintain on very cold days.
1. indoor temperature vs cold day
2. Which household maintained temperature than they were accustomed to?
3. indoor temperature
A source of confusion for me is how the term "on very cold days" is interpreted in question 5.
Could the sentence be rephrased
(A) "On very cold days, at least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature than they had been accustomed to maintain"?
Or
(B) must the "on very cold days" be read only as part "accustomed to maintain on very cold days"
This would change the meaning of the sentence. If we interpreted it as A, then it would mean that the comparison looks like this:
very cold days vs accustomed to (assumption: on not very cold days)
indoor temperature (which is lower?)
winner: very cold days
i.e. The indoor temperature on very cold days is lower (for 59% of households) than the indoor temperature they are accustomed to (assumed, on not very cold days)
If we interpret it as B, then the comparison goes like:
Accustomed to (descriptive: on very cold days) vs. Now
indoor temperature (which is lower?)
winner: Now
i.e. The indoor temperature is lower Now (for 59% of households) than they are Accustomed to on very cold days
My problem is that this grammar leaves room for error in how we understand "on very cold days". Is it a descriptor, which narrows our understanding of "accustomed to" to mean only "what they are accustomed to only on very cold days (but not what they are accustomed to on days that are not very cold)" or does it modify the entirety of the sentence and thus make the comparison very cold days vs what households were accustomed to (on not very cold days)?
Both my interpretation (A) and the interpretation in the video (B) require us to make an assumption. (A) makes the assumption that "accustomed to" implies "on not very cold days." (B) makes the assumption that we are comparing "accustomed to on very cold days" to "now." The assumption in (B) seems to me like a greater leap than the assumption in (A), making (A) a more reasonable way to read it.
Am I misunderstanding a grammar rule that would eliminate the possibility to interpret the sentence as (A)? Would there have to be a comma after "maintain" in order to read it this way?
that 5th question omggg
It was going good until question 5 lol
That last question definitely made me stop and question my intelligence haha
The 5th Question Ugh.