<p>P. 839 in 2nd edition</p>
<h1>26:</h1>
<p>Professor Chen repeated [her point that ] the hero, if [given] the chance [to relive] the moment, would choose to [do it]. No error</p>
<p>I chose no error, it turned out to be D [do it]. Can someone explain why this is right?</p>
<p>I’d say that D should be something along the lines of [relive it] or [do so].</p>
<p>Ask yourself: Grammatically, to what does “it” refer? (“it” has no antecedent.)</p>
<p>^Wouldn’t “it” refer to “the chance to relive it” ?</p>
<p>I got this one wrong in my practice test as well, and I didn’t receive any thorough reason for it besides “do so sounds better”</p>
<p>isn’t it just because the idiom is, "do so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s because the SAT requires that pronouns have antecedents; “it,” in this case, does not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Plugging the phrase into the sentence reveals the illogicality:</p>
<p>Professor Chen repeated her point that the hero, if given the chance to relive the moment, would choose to do the chance to relive the moment.</p>
<p>Rather, “it” intends to refer to the reliving of the moment.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree. I think it’s idiomatic error of “do so” vs. “do it”</p>
<p>^And I don’t think so. The antecedent “it” clearly refers “reliving the moment”. It’s quite explicit; I think you’re trying to force an antecedent error because they are common, but just not in this situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s nothing idiomatic about “do so.”</p>
<p>What sounds better to your ear? “do so” or “do it”? But idk, I suppose both could be plausible explanations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What two explanations are you referring to? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you asserting that the OP mistyped the sentence and that “to relive” was actually supposed to be a gerund? (If not, please note that an infinitive cannot function as the referrent of “it.”)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grammatically, it’s nonexistant.</p>
<p>this is the same kind of error in this question,</p>
<p>When the Berlin Wall, long a symbol of the Cold War, began to be torn down in 1989, five million people went to Berlin (to celebrate that).
A) for its celebration
B) to celebrate</p>
<p>A is wrong because its has no explicit antecedent, even though everyone knows that it’s talking about the tearing down of the wall, the sentence does not explicitly state this.</p>
<p>“And I don’t think so. The antecedent “it” clearly refers “reliving the moment”. It’s quite explicit; I think you’re trying to force an antecedent error because they are common, but just not in this situation.”</p>
<p>and no, the “it” does not clearly refer to “reliving the moment”.</p>
<p>I have been informed that the College Board claims that “do so” is “more idiomatic” in the context of the sentence. They must be using “idiom” in this sense:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>, whereas I was using it in this more common sense:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“do so” is not idiomatic in the latter sense.</p>
<p>It’s not idiomatic in the former sense either. It’s not in any way “peculiar” to English. Pronouns and adverbs are found in all languages. “It” is a pronoun (referring to a noun) while “so” is an adverb (modifying “do” and therefore referring to an action). The College Board likes to say “idiom” or “idiomatic” a lot, and doing so is a disservice to the students because they don’t learn how to reason from it.</p>
<p>A noun cannot be an action unless it is a gerund. So, the following sentences are correct:</p>
<p>“Eating is fun, and I like doing it.” (“eating” is a noun, so it can be the antecedent of “it”).
“I like to eat, but he hates doing so.” (“to eat” is a verb, so it corresponds with “doing so”)</p>
<p>wait, gerunds are nouns? I thought they were modified verbs?</p>
<p>Ahh now it’s all cleared up. Thank bandit/turtle.</p>
<p>Gerunds are nouns</p>