@

Your assertion "that it's not the best strategy when it comes to actually executing..."

I completely agree. RFS has to become intuitive, I think part of my pitfall that came from using RFS was actually looking at it as a strategy, a way to tackle the means to an end; rather, it is starting to help me to look at it as a process when reading, a fluid plan of attack.

I concur with @ on holding off on PTing.

Here is some extra support: Early on in prep, I was a bit reckless with opening and taking practice test without a true purpose behind it. Later on, when I started to reach my LSAT potential, practice test that have not been touched were like gold, but I did not have as much because of my eagerness to use those test earlier on in my LSAT journey.

Conclusion: Save as many PTs as you can until you get closer to reaching your potential; accordingly, using the end of the CC as that point could be very beneficial for you.

Invest in using those PTs for later and it will be even more valuable to you when you use them (just like gold! -- well, maybe not in this economy).

You are asking the right questions at the right time before starting 7Sage. You are setting up yourself up for success!

@ Thank you for your initial response.

You challenging the idea of RFS made me think of it in a more practical manner.

You helped me answer my own question, this is the better than any advice!

@ I appreciate your comment. It is always good to have strategies challenged because the worst things we can do when using a strategy is either use a strategy that we did not know is flawed or use a strategy we truly do not believe in. Challenging the strategy can help alleviate both those pitfalls because we are forced to look inwards.

For about 3 months I studied reasoning structure and this is what I gathered.

The theoretical basis of RFS is that everything in a reading comprehension passage is meant to support the purpose of the passage. The different components in the passage that fulfill this purpose are the following:

-Background Information

-Opinions

-Main Point(s)

-Reasons for and against those main points

-Consequences for Applying the Main Point(s) (essentially more information)

RFS is identifying these components of the passages and understand how they play off each other. The purpose for doing this is that the vast majority of RC questions test this skill, specifically, the broad questions that ask about purpose or organization and the inference questions concerned about the authors beliefs because they require a understanding of the purpose of the passage that comes from RFS. Low resolution summaries are effectively a branch of the RFS tree.

Here is the thing: I practiced this beyond belief for 3 months. NOTHING. I noticed that the time to finish passages increased exponentially, I became more confused because I focused on RFS and the actual content, and my confidence/score on RC never got to the level I was expecting from the input of practicing RFS.

However, I am coming back around to this idea, and now it is starting to come together. Reading for reasoning structure is not the "X marks the spot." Rather, it is the road map to get you to the "X marks the spot." RFS is the visual image you build in your head as you read. Once you understand the structure of the passage (how the various components of the passage play off each other to satisfy the purpose) the questions don't seem so daunting. RFS is the antithesis of reading to visualize the actual content of the passage.

For example, I am going to take your example that you beautifully wrote in response to another post of mine.

Although Einstein was an unambiguously brilliant scientist, modern understanding of quantum mechanics reveal that he was wrong in dismissing the phenomenon of quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein advocated for an alternative explanation known as ‘hidden variables.’ However, John Stewart Bell disproved the existence of these ‘hidden variables,’ and confirmed the theory of entanglement.

Rather than picturing -- Einstein himself dismissing the phenomenon, and how the author thinks it was wrong, then another person Bell comes in to show Einstein was wrong to dismiss.

These are 3 different images that are relevant to the actual subject material, but picturing these 3 different images can easily take the readers focus on understanding the purpose of the passage.

RFS would look like this --Although Einstein was an unambiguously brilliant scientist, (CTXT/Background info of Einstein) modern understanding of quantum mechanics reveal that he was wrong in dismissing the phenomenon of quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” (Main Point) Einstein advocated for an alternative explanation known as ‘hidden variables.’ However, John Stewart Bell disproved the existence of these ‘hidden variables,’ and confirmed the theory of entanglement. (Support for Main Point)

Now my understanding of the paragraph is ---

CTXT: Einstein was brilliant

MP: Einstein was wrong

Support: Bell

This is a condense version of what RFS is. Similar to low res summaries, it is the road map to answering the questions effectively and efficiently.

This is a fantastic explanation with a fantastic example! The inference questions that hit on subtle author opinions like the ones you mentioned above are what can be killers, g8 way to show that having the correct mindset can be a huge jump in understanding!

Thanks a lot!

If your taking the test in June, structure will be your best friend.

I would do the core curriculum in order for the following reasons:

1: Because of the process of working with 7Sage throughout the early parts of the core curriculum, by the time you get to logic games, you are going to be a master over the whole prep interface which will enhance your efficiency.

2: In the early parts of the core curriculum, J.Y. teaches you a ton of foundational work (logic, diagramming, arguments), that by the time you get to Logic games, you are going to be equipped with correct verbiage and basic skills to tackle that section with ease.

3: Lastly, in accordance with other sections, logic games is between Logical reasoning and Reading comprehension in the core curriculum timeline. Because the logic games is unique in regards of the semantics, think of it as a natural break between LR and RC.

Side note: Depending on your learning style, I would hold off on the Powerscore LG book. There is something to be said about sticking with one prep course all the way through before diving into another one. 7Sage is the best logic games prep course, and it is not even close.

The population of game ducks at the western lake contains a lower percentage of adult males than the population at the eastern lake contains.

Which one contains a lower percentage of adults?

The game ducks at the western lake.

People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery

Who is more likely to snore?

All I know is that you know those people who have undergone throat surgery? They are no more likely than people who have not. Now that doesn't mean that people who have not undergone throat surgery are not more likely. Perhaps, they are equally likely.

Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950.

So, you know all ski-related injuries in 1980? Yes. Well, divide that number by all the number of skiers in 1980s. Ok, that number you just calculated is smaller than the number you would get if you did the same calculation in 1980.

People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.

Who are we comparing?

Subjects which people possess extensive knowledge about vs. Subjects which people do not possess extensive knowledge.

What are people less objective about?

Well, they are less objective about subjects which the possess more knowledge about.

Some cultivars of corn aremuch more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.

Identifying A vs B

A = Sorghum

B = Most other cultivars of corn

The point of comparison is relation morphologically to some cultivars of corn

Winner? sorghum

Okay let's break that down:

In comparative statements, I focus in on the "than" and then work my way out on both sides of the "than". Okay. So we have: "sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn."

Ok but, look at that tiny preposition "to" attached to the "than." The consequences of not comprehending the "to" will be like a thorn in in your finger that you cannot find once you start trying to understanding the comparative relationship. You know it is there, you want to pull it out so bad, but you just can't pinpoint it. Whenever we see "than to" we can expect that the point of relation to be at the beginning of the clause and the actual relata to surround the "than" in immediate proximity.

Examples:

I would rather go to Dublin than to China

Some people choose to express themselves explicitly than to express themselves implicitly.

It is better to view history with optimism than to view with pessimism.

Next one:

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than are most other cultivars of corn.

What's the difference?

"than are"

Work out, however, know that whatever immediately precedes the phrase "than are" is the point of comparison and the first relata will be the start of the clause with the second relata coming after the "than" to finish the clause.

So, we see that what come immediately before "than are" in the example above is "closely related morphologically to sorghum"

Okay so what is the relata?

A = Some cultivars of corn

B = most other cultivars of corn

Winner? Some cultivars of corn.

Side examples:

Boys are more prone to violent than are girls.

Cats are better at climbing than are dogs.

Books that are long are harder to read than are books that are short.

A couple notes on this:

Translation of abstract ideas need to come full circle. If you translate/analogize something that is abstract to a tangible idea, the translation cannot stop there. You must translate the tangible understanding back into the abstract idea. If you only do half of the translation, then you will not see the full connection that is necessary to grasp the full idea. Think about it, let's say you are reading something on the LSAT about 400 B.C. artifacts and the composition of iron the artifacts contain, then you translate it by visualizing a stone tablet in your hand and you put it under a light that shows it has iron.

Okay fine. But, now, you need to get back to reality of the LSAT, we ARE talking about an abstract idea of artifacts and iron, we are not talking about your imagination. I know this seems pretty obvious, but if you neglect to translate back to the abstract idea, you might make sub-conscious inferences because you have a muddied idea between the actual abstract idea on the LSAT and whatever you imagined to help your understanding. So, when in doubt, feel free to conceptualize freely, but always come back down to the actual idea on the LSAT.

Another thing about translating, sometimes it is hard to translate something that we can barely comprehend. So, the solution is to focus on the relationship of the idea. The LSAT is all about relationships, for example, let's say we have the example of trying to comprehend 400 B.C. artifacts and their composition of iron. Focus on the relationship first, we have relata 1 which is 400 B.C. artifacts, relata 2 we have iron, and we are talking about how much of relata 2 makes up relata 1. Ok now we can bring together these two things into a synthesized understanding of artifacts and how much iron is in the artifacts. FOCUS ON THE RELATIONSHIP.

The Facebook Corporation, which already owns a majority of Buttbook Corporation's stock, has decided to proceed with the Face-Butt merger.

1. The Facebook Corporation already owns a majority of Buttbook Corporation’s stock.

2. The Facebook Corporation has decided to proceed with the Face-Butt merger.

His arguments persuaded the King to go to war with France, which prevented a war with Germany.

1. His arguments persuaded the King to go to war with France.

2. The King going to war with France prevented a war with Germany.

In the game of Monopoly, two types of cards - Chance cards, which are likely to cause the player to move, and Community Chest cards, which are likely to reward the player with money, - are drawable.

I broke this one up into 3 sentences.

1. In the game of Monopoly, Chance cards are likely to cause the player to move.

2. In the game of Monopoly, Community Chest cards are likely to reward the player with money.

3. Chance cards and Community Chest cards are drawable.

This government duly went ahead with the cuts, which provoked the Invergordon mutiny by sailors, which in turn provoked the run on the pound the cuts had been intended to prevent.

1. The governments cuts provoked the Invergordon mutiny by sailors.

2. Provoking the Invergordon mutiny by sailors in turn provoked the run on the pound the cuts had been intended to prevent.

Working backward from today’s languages through written classical ones allowed philologists to discover systematic changes, which in turn let them peer further into the past to posit what the unwritten PIE would have sounded like.

1. Philologists discovering systematic changes let them peer further into the past to posit what the unwritten PIE would have sounded like.

The principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable consequences is central to many areas of the law.

The principle. Of economics? No, the principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable consequences. What about this principle? Well, it is central. To what? To many areas of the law.

The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere is proportional to atmospheric pressure.

The amount? Of money? No, the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere. What about it. Is proportional? To what? To atmospheric pressure.

The parts of a spaceship unnecessary for life support are expendable in the event of an emergency.

The parts. Of a washer machine. No, of a spaceship. All parts? No the parts of a spaceship unnecessary for life support. What about those parts? They are expendable. All the time? No, in the event of an emergency.

Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism.

Journalism. All journalism? All journalism that provides accurate information on a subject. Any subject? Subject which there is considerable interest. What about this journalism? Is journalism. Good or bad? Good.

Early twentieth century physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes

All physicists? No. Twentieth century physicists. Okay, late or early? Early. What about these physicists? They were puzzled. By what? The existence of black holes.

The core of the sentence: Physicists were puzzled.

Early in this century, Alfred Wegener developed the concept of continental drift.

Alfred Wegener. What about him? He developed something. When did he develop something? Early in the 20th century. Did he develop something tangible. No, he developed a concept. A concept about…? Continental drift.

Core of sentence: Alfred Wegener developed.

A fourteen year study of finches on the Galapagos islands concluded that the populations X and Y diverged only several decades ago.

A study. A quick study? No a long study. How long? 14 years. What did they study? Finches. Where were these finches located? The Galápagos Islands. Okay fine. Why are these studies important? They concluded something. Okay… what did they conclude? That the populations X and Y diverged only several decades ago.

Core of sentence: A study concluded

Fines levied for environmentally damaging accidents are severe enough to induce companies to adopt new safety measures.

Fines. For parking tickets? No for environmentally damaging accidents. What about these fines? They are severe. How severe? Well, severe enough to induce companies to adopt new safety measures.

Core of sentence: Fines are severe enough.

Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.

Act. Good act or bad? Well wrong acts. All wrong acts. Yes. What about them? They are done with… done with what? Tell me! With the intention of causing harm.

The key to this question is understanding the unusual question stem:

Which of the following, as potential challenges, most seriously calls into question evidence offered in support of the conclusion above?

Ok, now let’s compare this with a usual weakening questions stem:

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument? Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson’s argument?

Notice the difference on how the question stem we are dealing with in this specific questions wants us to attack the premise. While, the traditional weakening question stem wants us to go after the argument, otherwise known as the premise/conclusion support structure.

If you are trying to directly to weaken the support structure, the question will be a time sink and unnecessarily confusing. I feel most comfortable identifying this question as miscellaneous with qualities of descriptive weakening question types. This is one of the rare times that the LSAT does want us to challenge the evidence directly, again, as noted by the unusual question stem.

Key takeaway: Have rigid foundational approaches but be flexible with the LSAT, everything is not black and white, there will always be some grey, as shown by this question.

This is one of those concepts on the LSAT that does not appear often; however, just understanding the basis of it will help immensely when it does come across on the LSAT!

We can even break down rhetorical questions further. Sometimes they can be used to imply a statement for dramatic effect, meaning, once we see the declarative statement of the rhetorical question, the declarative statement can further be analyzed to make another statement,

Example: Lets say we have a case where all the evidence lines up to show that Bob is guilty. Someone asks the prosecutor, is Bob guilty. The prosecutor responds: Is the sky blue?

The declarative statement is “the sky is blue” but we can further break that down to say “yes, Bob is obviously guilty,”

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.

Some cultivators of corn are much less closely related morphological to most other cultivators of corn than to sorghum.

Analysis: Tom is more like his mom than he is like his dad = Tom is less like his dad than he is like his mom.

If you are switching more to less than you have to switch the order in which relata comes first.

The genetic differences between the shrimp populations are much less significant than those between shrimp and many other marine species.

The genetic differences between shrimp and many other marine species are much more significant than those between shrimp populations.

Analysis: The personality difference between Tom and his family members is less significant than the difference between Tom and friends = The personality difference between Tom and his friends is more significant than between Tom and his family members.

Be cautious of the nuances in these sentences!

People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.

People tend to be more objective regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge.

Analysis: Tom is more indifferent on subjects that he doesn’t enjoys than subjects he does enjoy.

I felt like “more objective” or “more indifferent” are statements that we could also be looked at effectively by taking the equivalent statements.

More objective means less subjective.

More indifferent means less biased.

The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels.

The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly higher than it is in the diets of people who do read the nutrition labels.

Analysis: The misbehaving of Tom’s pets that do not go to behavioral school is significantly higher than it is in the pets of Tom’s that did go to behavioral school.

Again. Nuances.

People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.

For this statement, how can it be that people are not objective about either kind of subject?

If there is less objectivity about a subject in which we have much knowledge about, doesn't that imply that there is some sort of objectivity about a subject in which we have little knowledge?

How can we have no objectivity for either subject when one is less than the other?

#help

This is so prime for breaking down answer choices. The LSAT loves to confuse absolute comparisons with relative comparisons and vise-versa as trap answer choices. More often than not, when you see a comparative statement in a logical reasoning and reading comp answer choice, it will be wrong, rather than right. However, we could very well see a right answer choice as a comparative statement, the important thing is to just know how to handle comparative statements, inside and out.

The LSAT loves to make comparative statements in describing phenomena in science passages. Such as, we experience more pollution when X happens, or it less likely for animal X to fight with each other than animal Y, or bacteria is more likely to thrive when X happens, and so on.

Be on the look out for comparative statement when a science passage is describing a fact about the world!

This is very similar to conditional statements without a logical indicator. The use of a logical indicator in a conditional statement and the use of a “than” in a comparative statement is something that we can use as a translation mechanism when we are given statements that lack them.

Another important thing to remember is that we can not over infer a comparative statement when there isn’t one. A lot of wrong answers, especially on reading comp, will wrongly try to make a comparison that isn’t there. Rather, understanding a comparative statement is the first step in getting a inference question right.

Take the following example.

Michael Jordan is the best of all time in basketball.

Comparative statement: Michael Jordan is better than everyone else.

Aside: Bob Love plays basketball.

Inference: Bob Love is not as good as MJ.

Wrong inference: Michael Jordan is a better shooter/dribbler/defender then Bob Love. <—- these are inferences that are “out of scope.”

Something to think about with negative comparatives that will help is to understand the theory behind negative comparatives. Why would an author of a passage or paragraph not just use a simple comparative statement without a negation? Well, it is most likely due to the context. Maybe we expect the comparative statement go a certain way so therefore, we can better see the authors emphasis on how it does not go a certain way by inserting the word "not." For example, take the last example above. We would expect that people with perfect pitch would more likely ensure their kids to receive musical training as compared to people without perfect pitch. The author uses the word not to say, "hey whatever you may have assumed, it is not the case."

Take the first example: Tom is not taller than Athena.

Maybe we are given a bunch of information of how Tom is stronger than Athena, Tom is better at basketball than Athena, Tom has taller parents than Athena, and so on... But, rather then the author just saying the reverse without an emphasis "Athena is taller than Tom," what the author can do is say "hey look you know that Tom has all these qualities that are more than Athena, but guess what? Tom is not taller than Athena!"

Just a couple things to think about.

Check this out: Let's use conditional logic for a second.

Sentence 1:

Some cultivators of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivators of corn.

Some cultivators of corn = SCC

Most other cultivators of corn=MOC

Sorghum

SCC --> more closely related to S than to MOC

If it is some other cultivators of corn, then it is more closely related to sorghum than it is to most other cultivators of corn.

Now I clearly see the structure. It is between sorghum and most other cultivators of corn.

Which one is more closely related to some cultivators of corn?

Sorghum is.

Sentence 2:

Some cultivators of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than are most other cultivators of corn.

SCC --> more closely related to S than are MOC

Ok, now we are comparing SCC and MOC.

Which one is more closely related to sorghum?

Well SCC is.

Again, putting these statements into conditionality does not supplement your understanding of a comparative relationship. Rather it assists you to see the distinct parts of a statement and pick out the core of the relationship in a efficient manner, which, then seeing the comparative statement is a piece of cake.

A little different take on breaking down complex comparative statements or any complex statement on the LSAT.

Use a conditional logic road map. Considering that all the LSAT is testing is our ability to break down, analyze, and criticize relationships, we can translate the relationships in the most simple way possible, "if/then" statements.

For example:

The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read the nutrition label.

Translate to conditional logic:

Diets of people who read the nutrition labels (NL)

Diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels (/NL)

NL ---> significantly lower fat proportion than (/NL)

Otherwise stated as: If it is a person who reads the nutrition label then their fat proportion is significantly lower than the people who don't read the nutrition labels.

Look, I know, it is not perfect. It might seem a little too choppy to put these type of complex statements in a conditional statement. But, doing so, forces you to focus on the core RELATIONSHIPS. Especially, if you are adept at dealing with conditional statements, you will be forced to parse out the sentence to get to the core of any statement.

Be careful though, always translate back and understand what you are dealing with after you take a abstract sentence into a conational statement. Even though we can almost always use conditionality to take control of complex statement, if it is not a clear conditional relationship then be sure that you do not overreach the relationship has a clear cut conditional statement. Conditionality is a specific type of relationship.

The genetic differences between the shrimp populations are much less significant than those between shrimp and any other marine species.

Real quick word on this sentence.

When JY said that we can infer that “the genetic differences between the shrimp populations is less significant than the genetic difference between shrimp and lobsters”

My first thought was, wait, how do we know lobster? And then it came apparent that the word “any” that modifies other marine species is incredibly powerful. I mean, imagine the thousand different things we could say because of that word “any”. Imagine all the modifiers we could use for to describe any marine animal besides shrimp.

This is very similar to being able to derive the core of a clause (subject and predicate) from all the modifiers. The ability to extract modifiers quickly allows us to save precious time on the LSAT and focus on the core relationships that the LSAT is concerned with.

Let’s look at a basketball example:

Michael Jordan, a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the lates 1980s and into the early 2000s, is better (albeit only slightly) than the man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16, LeBron James.

Strip away the modifiers.

Michael Jordan, a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and into the early 2000s, is better (albeit, only slightly) than the man who was born from Akron, Ohio and who was named the “chosen one”by Sports Illustrated at the age of 16, LeBron James.

Michael Jordan is better than LeBron James.

A=MJ

B=LeBron

Point of comparison= who is better

Winner: MJ

Now, let’s imagine for some reason this statement was on the LSAT in a RC passage. The LSAT writers needed to devise some inference questions with this comparison statement for us to work through. How would they do that? Bring in the modifiers.

Let’s take the first few modifier that describes Michael Jordan as a 6 time NBA finals MVP that is worth a billion dollars and who played throughout the late 1980s and early 2000s.

Without even reading the rest of the sentence, we can already make some inferences just based of these modifiers.

1. Some people who have won a NBA championship are worth a billion dollars.

2. A person who has won a finals MVP has won more than 5 championship.

3. Someone who was born before the 1980s is a billionaire.

4. There is a player who played for 10+ years in The NBA.

Now we can also devise fake inferences that would be a trick answer choice.

1. Winning 6 finals MVP causes you to be a billionaire.

2. If you are a billionaire then you win 6 championships.

3. MJ won a NBA championship in the 90s.

Now take the modifiers of LeBron.

The man who born from the Akron, Ohio who was named the “ chosen one” by sports illustrated at the age of 16.

Now we can make some inferences based off the comparison.

1. Being named the chosen one does guarantee you are the best player of all time.

2. There is someone that is a billionaire that is better at basketball than someone who was born in Ohio.

Bad inferences:

1. Sports illustrated doesn’t think MJ is better than LeBron.

2. LeBron is not a billionaire.

3. Michael Jordan was never named the “chosen one”

4. MJ was not born in Ohio.

5. LeBron did not play at the same time as MJ.

Now, some of these might be true in the real world, and some are. But, based off just the statement we are given these are not good inferences.

Notice something here, creating bad inferences is so much easier than creating good ones. So, if you can get good at predicting the few inferences that can be made from a statement(s) then you can easily work through the bad ones.

Parsing out the nesting phrase from a comparative statement is similar to parsing out the contextual information from an argument. Similar to context in relation in an argument, the nesting phrase is irrelevant to the comparative statement, but indeed relevant to the overall structure in which the comparative statement is placed.

Examples:

Preston thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.

Skip Bayless thinks Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.

Some people think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.

So, no matter that the nesting phrase is, the comparison is between LeBron and Michael Jordan, and the point of comparison is better. Michael Jordan wins. This is true no matter what the nesting phrase is,

However, in relation to other parts of a passage or paragraph that the comparative statement has, the nesting phrase is important. For example, take the phrase “Skip Bayless thinks that MJ is better than LeBron.” And from information that is presented before that phrase, you know that I disagree with every single statement that Skip Bayless has ever uttered. You can now properly infer that I do not think Michael Jordan is better than LeBron.

Quick note on referential phrases that are in comparative statements: Working through referential will be easier with comparative statements because of the cookie cutter A vs B structure that comparative statements take on. The complexity in these statements is shifted toward the comparison and away from the referential phrases. If you focus on the comparison, your brain will do the rest, naturally, in deciphering the referential phrase.

Let’s look at some basketball examples:

1. Basketball is easier people that are tall than for those that are short.

A=Tall people

B=Short people

Point of comparison: Basketball is easier

Winner: Tall people

2. The championship is one by teams that play good defense rather than the ones that play good offense.

A= Teams that play good defense

B= Teams that play good offense

Point of comparison: Winning the championship

Winner: Teams that play good defense

3. The best way to make the team is to practice more than you otherwise would think.

A=Practice more

B=Practicing what you think is enough practice

Point of comparison= The best way to make the team

Winner= Practice more