<p>If you wish to truly understand Jefferson's notion of "the pursuit of happiness," you should read his letters to Mike.</p>
<p>What is wrong ? BARRON says that "his" refers to nothing, because Jefferson is never mentioned before. What is mentioned before is "Jefferson's". Is that right ?</p>
<p>Another question also in BARRON:</p>
<p>As an indication of the play's power to hold its audience, when the final curtain fell, there was only one man and one woman remaining in the theater.</p>
<p>What's wrong is "was", which must be "were" instead. But do you think that "its", just as "his letters" above, refers to nothing. There's some inconsistency between two questions from the same book ?</p>
<p>Another possibility is that "its" refers to "the theater", but I don't think this assumption will make sense.</p>
<p>Only one man + one woman = 2 men/people. So “was” should be replaced with “were”.
I’m not sure about the first question. But I guess Barron’s is right. In the first clause, there is only a noun “Jefferson’s notion”, not “Jefferson”. So “his” shouldn’t be applied, imo. But I wouldn’t think this way in reality, it’s just that I knew what the answer was.</p>
<p>Yes, there is only a noun “Jefferson’s notion” not Jefferson. So “his” is wrong.</p>
<p>But what about the second sentence.
There is only a noun “play’s power”. “Its” must refer to “play”, but similarly there’s no word “play” here, only “play’s power”.</p>
<p>I don’t see how there’s any possible confusion about the antecedent of “his” in the first sentence, but some grammarians would object to the split infinitive, “to truly understand.”</p>
<p>I don’t think number one is a valid question. I know the concept being tested and have done it a million times. However, in testing this concept I believe Barron’s outdid themselves. It should be his because its saying 'his letters to _" What else would it be, ‘Jefferson’s notion’s letters to _’? </p>
<p>The point is this grammar concept is not so black and white as, the noun is his notion not him. That doesn’t mean you can’t refer to him in another part of the sentence.</p>
<p>Prior to the formation of a regularly constituted government and the establishment of a legally chartered system for law enforcement were many American frontier communities, having vigilance committees that would try to keep some semblance of order.</p>
<p>Is this sentence correct ?
Prior to something were something else</p>
<p>There’s another thread about this question, kindhearted.</p>
<p>To use “which” to refer to an entire clause is sometimes considered correct grammar but is typically considered poor usage. The SAT does sometimes test usage. On the SAT, using “which” to refer to an entire clause will be wrong.</p>
<p>I’ve seen the rule before that a pronoun can’t refer to a possessive, but I agree that it doesn’t make sense: Jefferson’s is a noun in the possessive case, so it ought to be a possible antecedent of a pronoun. I agree that you’re very very unlikely to see this on a real exam.</p>
)</p>