Challenging Writing question URGENT!!! SAT in two days!!! lvl 4

<p>A Identifying Sentence Errors question:</p>

<p>During the years Sam belonged to the organization, he was everything (A)(except its) president, a position he had (B)(no desire) to hold (C)(because of) the publicity (D)(it) attracted. (E)(No error)</p>

<p>So, (D) "it" can refer to either "the organization", which changes the question to:</p>

<p>During the years Sam belonged to the organization, he was everything except its president, a position he had no desire to hold because of the publicity (the organization) attracted. </p>

<p>or "position(aka president)", which changes the question to:</p>

<p>During the years Sam belonged to the organization, he was everything except its president, a position he had no desire to hold because of the publicity (the position) attracted. </p>

<p>Both of the statements make perfect sense. So the problem is (D)(it), an ambiguous reference problem right?</p>

<p>Nope, the correct answer is (E), No error. Apparently this sentence is clear to ETS. Can anyone please tell me what I did wrong?</p>

<p>BTW, this question is from the May 2013 North America SAT, lvl 4. So this question affects everyone taking the October SAT. ONLY 2 days left!!!! PLZ HELP!!!!!</p>

<p>well if you clearly see “it” isnt ambiguous in this case since" a position" and "it " are in the same clause (after the comma)</p>

<p>But how does that stop “it” from referring to “the organization”? I don’t recall there’s a grammar rule saying that pronouns can’t refer to nouns in different clauses.
This is also evident in many SAT questions, especially those beginning with a clause such as “Known for their blah blah blah, A and B are blah blah blah”.</p>

<p>Hello yuehaoxuanar…
I’ve also seen similar instances where da commas seemingly remove the ambiguity. I don’t have a proper explanation for it though. I’m just extra careful when I notice a pronoun after a comma. Could you please e-mail the May 2013 test to me BTW?</p>

<p>Bump, bump. Anyone with a reliable grammar rule??? HELPPPP!!!</p>

<p>Bump because that is the evilest thing the college board could have done</p>

<p>The “It” refers to the position because the entire part after the comma is a dependent clause, but nevertheless a clause. The only other subject/object in the clause is “position” so that’s what the “it” refers to.
You COULD make it refer to the organization, but unless the sentence context was clearly referring to the organization, then “it” would be right. </p>

<p>Taking the SAT in 2 days too, and idk if it’s allowed but can you also email the 2013 test to me?</p>

<p>That’s the problem: “it” COULD refer to “the organization”, and if we drag a perfectly random person from our school hallway, s/he might intepret this sentence in a different way. Can anyone plz point out a specific grammar rule that talks about the relationship between pronoun reference and clauses? I’ve been googling for like 4hrs and can’t find anything slightly related. BUMP!!! SAT in 1 DAY! Xiggi? Silverturtle? someone?</p>

<p>Thanks Yue… I was going to pm this but for a strange reason I can’t do that until I have 15 posys. So much fun for a newbie.</p>

<p>Actually, "because of“ is underlined. And I’m still not convinced that pronouns can’t refer to nouns from different clauses. Pronouns can even refer to nouns from different sentences.</p>

<p>And the antecedent is?</p>

<p>During the years Sam belonged to the organization, he was everything except its president, a position he had no desire to hold because of the publicity (the organization) attracted.
And how is this wrong?</p>

<p>One possible scenario: the organization is a mob gang and people hate it. The organization has lots of publicity and screws people up. So this guy does not what to be president b/c he’ll be screwed b/c the publicity the organization attracted.</p>

<p>lol, mob bosses are those who incurs the greatest bounty.
Say if you’re an Apple employee. You don’t want to be in a position like Steve Jobs’s b/c Apple attracts a lot of attention and critisim. I believe that this sentence still makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>My argument is that you do not know WHAT attracted the attention. That’s why the sentence can have multiple meanings. Might be the organization itself. Might be the position.</p>

<p>Well, the question is from Q&A May North America. Let’s go sue collegeboard.</p>