This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, it is unclear whether “he” refers back to John or James. Since we do not have a clear antecedent for our pronoun, any answer choice that utilizes “he” can be eliminated. In fact, in many cases, we correct pronoun ambiguity by eliminating the pronoun entirely, as the correct answer, “but only the former” has done. By referring to “the former,” the sentence has made it clear that we’re referring to John. The correct answer also includes the logical coordinating conjunction “but” after the comma to connect the two independent clauses in the sentence. Our final incorrect answer, “only the former” fails to include this conjunction and creates a comma splice.

This question primarily tests us on reference and the use of the proper, possessive form “its.” In the sentence, it would be illogical to use the contraction “it’s,” as the sentence is not attempting to say “it gained it is inspiration.” Instead, if we use “its,” the single possessive pronoun to refer to the inspiration Jazz gained. It is also important that we begin the underlined portion with “where,” as “which” illogically refers back to New Orleans and implies that New Orleans gained its inspiration from ragtime and blues. The correct answer, “where it gained its” correctly addresses that New Orleans is the location where Jazz gained the inspiration it possesses.

If we look to the answer choices, we can see that this question primarily tests the singular vs. plural nature of the verb was vs. were, and the possessive pronoun its vs. their. Two of our choices, “was well known for their​” and “were well known for its” are illogical given that they utilize a plural verb with a singular pronoun, or a singular verb with a plural pronoun. Since both of these terms refer back to the same subject: “Egyptians.” Since “Egyptians” is a plural subject, we need a plural verb and a plural pronoun, so the correct answer is “were well known for their.” Here, if we remove the modifying phrase “who inhabited ancient Egypt from 1500-1000 B.C.” the agreement of “Egyptians” to “were well known for their” becomes more straightforward and clear.

This example tests us on meaning and pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, we can clearly see that two things have led to a rebound in the eagle population: prohibitions and the ban of a pesticide. However, our incorrect constructions introduce either the singular pronoun “it” or “its,” or the plural possessive pronoun “their.” This is illogical, as it is unclear whether the pronoun should refer to the bald eagle (an illogical construction) or the United States (a more logical but unclear antecedent. Additionally, “because it has prohibited” introduces a sentence construction error by forming the underlined portion as a verb phrase that does not parallel the rest of the sentence as intended. This leaves us with our original answer, “because prohibitions on.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of singular vs. plural possessive pronouns to refer back to their proper antecedents. In the original construction, “their” illogically attempts to refer back to “the host mother.” This is incorrect, as we need to match a singular possessive pronoun with a singular antecedent, or a plural possessive pronoun with a plural antecedent. Only our correct answer, “host mothers try to identify their own eggs” accomplishes this. We want to be particularly careful when both elements of an agreement or ambiguity-based question are within the underline, as the author of the question could choose to change both components of the agreement at hand, as we see in this example.

This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity and meaning. In the original construction, the underlined portion seems to imply that officials are “threatened by the potential for overpopulation,” since the modifier at the start of the sentence must logically modify what follows. This is illogical, as officials are neither threatened by or limiting “their” population growth. “officials of Central New Jersey has limited its” makes a similar mistake, and also incorrectly attempts to agree “officials” with the singular pronoun “its.” When we begin the underlined portion of the sentence with “Central New Jersey,” rather than “officials,” we correct the modifier error previously described. However, in “Central New Jersey has limited their,” we incorrectly agree the singular noun “Central New Jersey” with the plural pronoun “their.” Our correct answer, “Central New Jersey has limited its” corrects both of these issues by presenting the location itself as threatened and creating proper agreement to that location with the singular pronoun “its.”

This example tests us on pronoun ambiguity. In the original construction, and in all constructions that utilize the pronoun “they,” the pronoun is ambiguous and creates a reference error. A reference error exists when it is unclear who or what the pronoun refers back to. In this case, the pronoun “they” could refer back to the managers, or to the employees. Does the manual outline rules for employees about contacting managers while the managers are out of the office, or while the employees are? Because we are uncertain of the pronoun’s antecedent, all answers that utilize “they” can be eliminated, and we’re left with “who are.” “Who are” is logical in this case, as the relative clause opener “who” must logically refer back to the noun or noun phrase before, in this case, managers.