<p>In the sentence:</p>
<p>A fish that has been chased to the surface of the water might hurtle into the air to confuse a pursuer, WHICH either won't notice its prey or will be unable to predict where IT will land. </p>
<p>I kinda understand why the which in this sentence may be clear, but what trick do you guys use to determine the ambiguity of which, that, it, etc. </p>
<p>Also, couldn't IT refer to the pursuer or the fish???</p>
<p>Usually, I look at the pronoun and the other nouns in this sentences. The I think to myself, “If ‘which’ stood for any of the other nouns, would the sentence make sense?” If it could work, then it is ambiguous. Keep in mind I said make sense, not logical.</p>
<p>In general, which introduces a nonrestrictive clause. If the clause that ‘which’ introduces can be removed, which is the correct pronoun. In this sentence, ‘which’ introduces a clause that is not imperative to the meaning of the sentence ie. “A fish that has been chased to the surface of the water might hurtle into the air to confuse a pursuer.” is a complete sentence.</p>
<p>On the other hand, ‘that’ is used when a restrictive clause is being introduced.
Ex: A fish that is being chased will often get killed. Here, ‘A fish’ cannot stand without the clause that is introduced by ‘that’. </p>
<p>‘It’ has to refer to the pursuer in this sentence as it is referring back to the information provided with 'its prey"</p>
<p>Thanks for the help guys, however, for example, in the sentence below, which is ambiguous, but if I remove the clause which introduces, the sentence can still stand on its own. </p>
<p>Australian Jessica Watson became the youngest person ever to sail around the world, which she achieved in March of 2010.</p>
<p>if you remove which, you get a complete sentence…</p>
<p>Australian Jessica Watson became the youngest person ever to sail around the world.</p>
<p>Can you please answer, thanx :)</p>