Regarding the "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment" example, is it right to say that the referential 'that' is referring to the whole clause: "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment"? It seems to me that this is a claim about the capacity of alcohol to impair judgment, which is not in and of itself that which poses a threat to the team's safety. Rather, the serious impairment of the operator's judgment in itself poses the threat. I appreciate any clarification.
2
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.
Regarding the "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment" example, is it right to say that the referential 'that' is referring to the whole clause: "alcohol seriously impairs an operator's judgment"? It seems to me that this is a claim about the capacity of alcohol to impair judgment, which is not in and of itself that which poses a threat to the team's safety. Rather, the serious impairment of the operator's judgment in itself poses the threat. I appreciate any clarification.