<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Many changes occurred while she was president of the (college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.)</p>
<p>A) college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.</p>
<p>B) college, they both increased the educational quality and effectiveness of the college.</p>
<p>C) college, which both increased its educational quality as well as increased its effectiveness.</p>
<p>D) college; these changes increased its educational quality and effectiveness.</p>
<p>E) college; these changes increased both the educational quality and effectiveness of the college.</p>
<p>I narrowed my choices to D and E before I selected D for its more terse. But the answer turned out to be E. Can anyone explain why? Is it really necessary to include "both.. of the college" instead of using the pronoun "it" due to the ambiguity that D creates?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance!</p>
<p>This question has been asked several times in the past year or so. I have always been troubled by it: the pronoun “it” must take an impersonal, singular antecedent, and “college” is the only such word in the sentence. Nonetheless, here’s what I wrote about it a little while ago:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shouldn’t E read “these changes increased both the educational quality and <em>the</em> effectiveness of the college.”</p>
<p>^ No, a second replacement would make it redundant.</p>
<p>^ I thought <em>the</em> would be needed for parallelism. Anyone care to elucidate me on this matter?</p>
<p>You have to repeat the article, actually. “Both” calls for parallel structure, just like adjectives and verbs that modify independent things grouped together (“John likes swimming and hiking”). However, the intent of the writer probably concerns the possessive nature of (D) and (E). (D) says “its X and Y” whereas (E) says “both the X and [the] Y of [it].” (D) does not group X and Y together; it may imply that only X is of “it” and that Y is an independent structure. Of course this is not true (and thus the question is problematic), but that is likely the reasoning behind the question.</p>
<p>^ Yes, I agree that determiners are a necessary component of parallelism in correlative conjunctions; the question is problematic. Unlike crazybandit, however, I do not feel that choice (E) more clearly indicates the compound possession than does choice (D) (both seem equally unclear though correct).</p>
<p>i don’t either, but that was likely what the writer thought. that is why (E) utilizes “both.” i was merely giving a small nod to the strategy of putting oneself in the writer’s shoes when approaching questions</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry for mis-reading your original point. You had qualified it.</p>
<p>Thanks alot everyone!! I learned something new today. I never realized “it” could be interpreted in such a way.</p>