LSAT grammar Q #3

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:16 am

Hello,
Here comes my grammar question again.
Q.a. A sentence from one of the prep test:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
My question is, can this one be interpreted as:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus the energy tax increase will benefit the economy?

I just want to know that does "benefiting the economy" describes "the energy tax increase" or "The editorialist's country's budget deficit"?

Q.b. Another sentence:
Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

can the above sentence be rewritten as:
leading some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency, increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil?

Thank you for any explanation. Also, I think the above two sentences from the prep test are grammatically consistent to one principle, namely, two clauses sharing the same subject, am I correct? I am not clear about that though, sorta confusing to me.

Oscar85
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby Oscar85 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:04 am

lixxx253 wrote:Hello,
Here comes my grammar question again.
Q.a. A sentence from one of the prep test:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
My question is, can this one be interpreted as:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus the energy tax increase will benefit the economy?

I just want to know that does "benefiting the economy" describes "the energy tax increase" or "The editorialist's country's budget deficit"?

Q.b. Another sentence:
Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

can the above sentence be rewritten as:
leading some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency, increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil?

Thank you for any explanation. Also, I think the above two sentences from the prep test are grammatically consistent to one principle, namely, two clauses sharing the same subject, am I correct? I am not clear about that though, sorta confusing to me.

The first one I interpret as a chain. If tax increase -> country's budget decrease --> better for economy (if tax increase, the country's budget will decrease which is good for the economy. It just means the tax increase is sufficient because it will decrease the deficit, and that is therefore good for the economy.

You made the second one sound too confusing, at least to me. You don't want to complicate things on the LSAT, but if it makes sense to you, go ahead. The second one can be interpreted as: (first clause), [the fact that first clause) has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller... to achieve greater FE.

User avatar
Stupe
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:19 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby Stupe » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:39 am

You are making the correct inference on the first one, which will probably lead you to the credited response. If X, then Y; if Y, then Z. You can and should make the jump in logic that increasing the energy tax would benefit the economy.


X->Y
Y->Z
-----
X->Z


My memory is failing me right now, but I think that's a hypothetical syllogism. Grats OP you're doing formal logic.

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:46 am

Oscar85 and Stupe, logically I do agree with your explanations, but grammatically it is obscure to me, still.
in your explanations, the first sentence,
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.

shall be understood as:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus (the editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease) will benefit the economy.

my confusion is that the subject of the second clause is the first clause, i.e., the editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease. Can it be explained in grammar?


As for the second sentence,
Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

'which' from the second clause refers to the first clause, then the first clause becomes the subject of the second clause. In grammar, I do not know if there is a sentence can be written as:
A, which does B.
It seems the sentence is not finished, unless it is written as:
A, which does B, does C.

A, B, C here all can be understood as a function of noun.

Hopefully I express my question clear, or, maybe not.

anyway, thank you for help!

foggynotion
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:19 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby foggynotion » Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:06 am

lixxx253 wrote:Oscar85 and Stupe, logically I do agree with your explanations, but grammatically it is obscure to me, still.
in your explanations, the first sentence,
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.

shall be understood as:
The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus (the editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease) will benefit the economy.

my confusion is that the subject of the second clause is the first clause, i.e., the editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease. Can it be explained in grammar?


As for the second sentence,
Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

'which' from the second clause refers to the first clause, then the first clause becomes the subject of the second clause. In grammar, I do not know if there is a sentence can be written as:
A, which does B.
It seems the sentence is not finished, unless it is written as:
A, which does B, does C.

A, B, C here all can be understood as a function of noun.

Hopefully I express my question clear, or, maybe not.

anyway, thank you for help!

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but...

I would read that fuel efficiency sentence as:

A does B, which has led to C (the "which" is referring to the fact that A does B)

In words, I understand it as "Because increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, some people suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency. "

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:58 am

Thanks, foggynotion, it is a very clear explanation. I am just not used to that writing. So,
A does B, which has led to C (the "which" is referring to the fact that A does B)

is a grammar correct expression. Usually I see sentences in which 'which' here refers to B, an object. it is rare to see which refers to a clause, to me.

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:02 am

i am still bit confusing, beause:
A does B, which has led to C (the "which" is referring to the fact that A does B)
it seems the sentence is not completed.
a complete sentence is something looking like this:
because A does B, C does D.
or,
A does B, and C does D.
or,
Doing C, A does B. (here the ignored subject in 'doing C' refers to A).
or,
A does B, which does C. (which here referes to B)

User avatar
Stupe
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:19 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby Stupe » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:49 am

[The editorialist's country's budget deficit will decrease]

This is the independent clause of the sentence.


[if the energy tax increase is implemented,]

This clause is dependent on the independent clause.


[thus benefiting the economy.]

This one is dependent on the above dependent clause. My formal grammar is a bit rusty so I'm not sure if dependent clauses can be linked to other dependent clauses.

foggynotion
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:19 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby foggynotion » Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:43 am

lixxx253 wrote:i am still bit confusing, beause:
A does B, which has led to C (the "which" is referring to the fact that A does B)
it seems the sentence is not completed.
a complete sentence is something looking like this:
because A does B, C does D.
or,
A does B, and C does D.
or,
Doing C, A does B. (here the ignored subject in 'doing C' refers to A).
or,
A does B, which does C. (which here referes to B)


I get what you're saying, and I don't know if the sentence is technically grammatically incorrect or not--but I've come across things phrased like this a lot. Like, for instance, "The store is closed, which means I'll have to come back tomorrow." There, the "which" is referring to the fact that the store is closed, just like the "which" in the original referred to the fact that A does B, not just B (I hope that made sense), although I think it's probably more obvious than it is in the original because my "store is closed" example is shorter and simpler.

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:25 am

Stupe, independent clause makes sense to me. I will check it further. Thanks!

foggynotion, thank you! Your example is very clear. Now I am more used to this kind expression.

lixxx253
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 am

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby lixxx253 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:04 am

it seems dependent clause cannot be applied in this situation. I am wondering what grammar is this for. Any idea? Thanks.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: LSAT grammar Q #3

Postby Big Dog » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:14 am

your first inference may be (politically) correct today, but there is little economic data to support the conclusion. Yes, raising taxes will lead move government funding and (hopefully) a reduction in the deficit. BUT, making the leap that a reduction in the deficit "will benefit the economy" is just a leap of faith because it ain't always true.

For example, it was only 3+ years ago that President Bush and the newly elected President Obama both claimed that increasing the deficit would be better for the economy. Increasing the deficit by borrowing $800 bill and then spending it, was supposed to increase economic growth, i.e., "benefit the economy."

Increasing the deficit might be a good thing in times of war.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DumbHollywoodActor and 6 guests