Today's techonology allows manufacturers to make small cars

[RonPurewal]

"stand-alone" meaning, basically, "not part of a larger phrase (in a comparison)".

here's a CORRECT use of "those" as a pronoun in a comparison:
The students at School X are about a year older, on average, than those at School Y.

we CAN'T use "they" here, because "they" would have to stand for "the students at school x" (not just "the students").
this is the reason why we have the pronouns "that" and "those" for comparisons -- so we can pull nouns out of larger phrases, WITHOUT all the attached qualifiers/modifiers/adjectives/etc.

basically, if you CAN use "they", then you can't use "those". (similarly, with singular nouns, if you can use "it" then you can't use "that".)

[minhux383]

Choice A doesn't have that issue. ("Their" in choice A is fine.)

The problem with choice A is that it suggests that manufacturers are retooling existing small cars, rather than creating new ones that are better.

E.g.,
I'm going to make air conditioners quieter. --> I'm going to modify existing air conditioners so that they make less noise.

I'm going to make quieter air conditioners.
I'm going to make air conditioners that are quieter.
--> I'm going to make a new model that makes less noise.

A is like the first one of these, so it doesn't make sense in context.

Hi, Ron
I find your post extremely helpful in my study.
I am still confused though:

(a) make small cars more efficient now than any time in their(small cars') production history

I think that: small cars' production history goes well with any time, not any other time. Because literally history does not include the time point "now", am I right on this saying?
I find the "any other time in history" saying somehow redundant. In A, today modifies technology and is in subject, and the author compare now with any past time from the object -manufactures-'s side, so I don't thinks now is wrong because of today.

If "their" refers to the exact "small cars" appeared earlier in the sentence, the sentence is saying workers make sth more efficient now than ever (in sth's history).
Using your sentence, I would say "I am going to make air conditioners quieter than ever", but we don't need to remake air conditioners-we are still making new ones, just quieter than former ones. So here the "small cars" can be referred back to themselves, serving as a general concept.

If we change "small cars" into "cars", I find the choice even more confusing.

Workers make cars more efficient now than any time in their(cars') production history
- make cars more efficient now than ever.

Please help me clear the thoughts, thanks again.

[KwakuA962]

I caught on to the "those" difference and narrowed my options to C and D .

c. small cars that are more fuel-efficient than those at any other time in
d. more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their

I eventually chose D over C because i thought that saying any other time in production history because of two reasons.

1. "any other time" i felt was irrelevant, history itself indicates that we are talking of a time before the current time. Hence saying any other time is perhaps not required.

2. I felt "their" was required since we needed to clarify whose production history. I mean are we talking about Production History of Cars in General or Production history of Cars manufactured by Various Manufacturers.


If Ron says C is right, Then C is definitely is Right, I would appreciate if someone can plug the holes in my logic.

The use of their in C is confusing. Remember that their must have only one antecedent and in D, it has two which can either be manufacturers or be small cars. It is not clear whose production history we are referring to. But in C, dropping their helps clarify it. Also, any other time is relevant. You can not compare today with any time because today is included in any time and you want to be specific saying car production today is better than it was any other time.

[minhux383]

I caught on to the "those" difference and narrowed my options to C and D .

c. small cars that are more fuel-efficient than those at any other time in
d. more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their

I eventually chose D over C because i thought that saying any other time in production history because of two reasons.

1. "any other time" i felt was irrelevant, history itself indicates that we are talking of a time before the current time. Hence saying any other time is perhaps not required.

2. I felt "their" was required since we needed to clarify whose production history. I mean are we talking about Production History of Cars in General or Production history of Cars manufactured by Various Manufacturers.


If Ron says C is right, Then C is definitely is Right, I would appreciate if someone can plug the holes in my logic.

The use of their in C is confusing. Remember that their must have only one antecedent and in D, it has two which can either be manufacturers or be small cars. It is not clear whose production history we are referring to. But in C, dropping their helps clarify it. Also, any other time is relevant. You can not compare today with any time because today is included in any time and you want to be specific saying car production today is better than it was any other time.

Don't quite agree.
Unless you include today in history, you can say now as opposed to any "other" time in history.
If there is history, present, and future, how come today( now or present) is another time in history?

[RonPurewal]

the present is part of the production history, unless the cars are no longer being made.

[JayaK668]

Hello Instructors,
I know option B is incorrect because of the usage of 'they' which refers to same copy - small cars of today.
But, isn't 'their' in option B not ambiguous as compared to 'their' in option A? The reason is every 'them', 'their', and 'they' in a sentence should refer to same plural antecedent which is 'small cars' here.
'they' in this sentence refers to 'small cars', so 'their' should also refer to same.
Please help me if my understanding is wrong.

Many Thanks!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

On my reading, it's possible for 'their' to refer to 'small cars'. After all, we're discussing the production history of small cars. As Dan discussed above, this could introduce ambiguity.

However, my take on this tricky problem is that the comparison and meaning issues are the ones to focus on. Answer A suggests that the manufacturers are making small cars efficient, i.e. they're changing small cars, but in fact they're making small cars that are efficient. See Ron's post above for more about the comparison issue.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - one reason B is considered wrong in this sentence is because of the usage of "THEY".

They illogically implies that we are talking about the same cars mentioned in the first part of the sentence.

But what about "THEY" in a sentence like this

[JbhB682]

Sentence # 1 :
Whereas Monkeys in Kenya are tall, they are short in Tanzania

Is the usage of "THEY", really talking about the same tall Monkeys in Kenya ?

I would think no

[JbhB682]

Another example :
Whereas iPhones in 2005 had 5-megapixel cameras, today they have 15-megapixel cameras.

Applying the above concept regarding "THEY" , is "THEY" really referring back to the same old 2005 iPhones ?

(almost implying that the iPhone manufacturer took the same old 2005 iphone, took out the 5 megapixel camera and replaced the camera of old 2005 iPhone with a 20 megapixel camera instead)

I would think "THEY" in this sentence is a DIFFERENT SET of IPhones

[esledge]

I agree that they is problematic in both your iPhone example and monkey example, as it is in the original small cars question.

The common threads seem to be:
(1) A first clause with a subject noun that is modified to focus on some subset of that noun (iPhones from a certain year, monkeys in a certain place, cars of a certain size).
(2) A second clause with they as the subject, where the INTENT is to modify just the main noun, but differently this time.

So the confusion is that they could refer to the entire modified noun in the first clause, which then gets a conflicting meaning or modifier of its own in the second clause, so you get the nonsensical "Today, iPhones in 2005 have 15-megapixel cameras" or "Monkeys in Kenya are short in Tanzania."

In the original example, I think (B) has additional reasons to doubt the they that your examples didn't get into: they, or at least their, could also refer to manufacturers, and in general it's harder to use two similar pronouns together unless it's really clear what both refer to.