<p>16 on page 724 ( I know this has been explained, but I still have a question about this one in particular)
16. In the [early days] of the steam locomotive, [compassionate] engineers would sometimes [have thrown] coal overboard [in poor] neighborhoods. [No error]
Okay, so at first i thought that the "have thrown" sounded wrong, but then I thought that in poor was supposed to be INTO poor neighborhoods. Why is "in" correct?</p>
<p>Also,
for 25,
Professor Chen repeated [her point that] the hero, if [given] the chance to [relive] the moment, would chose to [do it]. [No error]
I looked at the explanation for this as well. The "do it" DOES sound awkward, but I didn't think it was wrong because I saw it as reffering to "relive the moment". I know that "it" has to have an antecedent, but I don't see how it's ambigious in this sense. I did look at xitamarg(sp) explanation for this, but I'm still a bit confused.</p>
<p>in and into both works. in isn't wrong.</p>
<p>Second one :It's "If given the chance" not "given the chance" therefore it is ambiguous</p>
<p>Really? hmm
Cause I have always thought that into was for motion, while in indicated location.</p>
<p>hi akvareli,</p>
<p>for the first one, you're right that "in" denotes position and "into" denotes direction. but the direction in this sentence is already given with the word "overboard," which means "over the side;" here, the "over" is indicating the direction/motion. "in" is appropriate because the <em>motion</em> of going "overboard" is happening in the <em>location</em> of the poor neighborhoods. does that make sense?</p>
<p>for the second thing, the word "it" is a pronoun. pronouns have to replace nouns, and there is no noun in the sentence that "it" can be replacing. "relive" is a verb, not a noun, so "it" can't replace it. remember that, on the SAT, every pronoun needs to have its noun somewhere in the sentence with it. since "it" doesn't have a noun in the sentence that it can replace, "it" has to be wrong in the SAT's eyes.</p>
<p>does that help any more? it's basically the same explanation warmed over, but i tried to amplify it a little.</p>
<p>Oh. okay! I get it now. Yeah, Thank you very much! I know it might have seem redundant to ask it over again, but I just didn't understand the other explanation. My bad though.</p>