When can a pronoun refer to a noun in prepositional phrase?

[rohan]

I am not able to understand this concept, and would really appreciate if someone from MGMAT staff can clarify this.

Since, OG material is banned .. I will replicate some parts of the sentence -- hope that is okay

OG 13 #7

The intricate structure of the compound eye , with its hundreds----, helps explain -- that it evolved

Here both its(underlined) refer back to compound eye, which is in a prepositional phrase.

OG13 #81
Fossils of the arm of a sloth --- , made it

Here it(underlined) cannot refer to sloth - because it is the object of the preposition.

[jlucero]

I am not able to understand this concept, and would really appreciate if someone from MGMAT staff can clarify this.

Since, OG material is banned .. I will replicate some parts of the sentence -- hope that is okay

OG 13 #7

The intricate structure of the compound eye , with its hundreds----, helps explain -- that it evolved

Here both its(underlined) refer back to compound eye, which is in a prepositional phrase.

OG13 #81
Fossils of the arm of a sloth --- , made it

Here it(underlined) cannot refer to sloth - because it is the object of the preposition.

First and foremost, notice that when all 5 answer choices use a pronoun (as #7 does), your goal on test day is not to figure out if it's acceptable, but to ignore it since you don't have a better option. For now, let's focus on the similarities b/w those 2 problems.

In 7A/B and 81A/B/C you have a sentence structures that resembles this:

X of Y, having A, did Z.
The picture of the dog, having been stolen, was lost forever.

Notice that the phrase "having been stolen" refers to the subject of the sentence "the picture" and not "the dog". This is what makes 7A/B wrong: "the structure of the eye, having hundreds of mini eyes,...". We aren't talking about the subject having hundreds of mini eyes, so we need a different structure here. The OG's solution is to use a prepositional phrase.

81A/B/C have a similar problem: "Fossils of the arm of a sloth has been dated, made/making it/this/the sloth" In A/B/C, the "it/this" would refer back to the fossils, while D properly reuses the noun to clearly express that "the sloth was the earliest known mammal".

[soulwangh]

In 7A/B and 81A/B/C you have a sentence structures that resembles this:

X of Y, having A, did Z.
The picture of the dog, having been stolen, was lost forever.

Notice that the phrase "having been stolen" refers to the subject of the sentence "the picture" and not "the dog". This is what makes 7A/B wrong: "the structure of the eye, having hundreds of mini eyes,...". We aren't talking about the subject having hundreds of mini eyes, so we need a different structure here. The OG's solution is to use a prepositional phrase.

81A/B/C have a similar problem: "Fossils of the arm of a sloth has been dated, made/making it/this/the sloth" In A/B/C, the "it/this" would refer back to the fossils, while D properly reuses the noun to clearly express that "the sloth was the earliest known mammal".

Hi， Instructor.

In 7A/B and 81A/B/C you have a sentence structures that resembles this:

X of Y, having A, did Z.
The picture of the dog, having been stolen, was lost forever.

Notice that the phrase "having been stolen" refers to the subject of the sentence "the picture" and not "the dog".

My questions:
1/
Is it a rigid rule that in pattern"X of Y, having A, did Z.", "having A" definitely refers to the subject, namely "X of Y"?
2/
OR Is it possible that we should judge the reference according to the context and logical meaning? In other words, Is it possible, under certain circumstances, that "having A" can refers to "Y" in pattern"X of Y, having A, did Z".

If 2 is correct, I don't think "having" alone can eliminate OG 13 #7 A/B.

Please correct me.

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

1/
Is it a rigid rule that in pattern"X of Y, having A, did Z.", "having A" definitely refers to the subject, namely "X of Y"?

I'm not sure. It seems likely, because a reference to Y would be clearer with "which".
More importantly, though, it really doesn't matter -- What are the odds that you'll ever see this exact construction again?

2/
OR Is it possible that we should judge the reference according to the context and logical meaning? In other words, Is it possible, under certain circumstances, that "having A" can refers to "Y" in pattern"X of Y, having A, did Z".

It's generally better to think this way.

If 2 is correct, I don't think "having" alone can eliminate OG 13 #7 A/B.

Perhaps, but both of those choices can be eliminated for other reasons that are very straightforward. (A has a subject and verb that don't agree. B tries to use "they" to refer to something that's singular.)