0
Surfer Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

that

Hello, everyone.

Would you please take a look at the followng statement

"Drunk drivers became increasingly involved in fatalities on roads, as evident from the latest nation-wide statistics introduced last year, so a new set of strict rules emerged that rendered such offense a serious crime with very heavy fine."

What's that referring to there?:

Is it referring to "set of strict rules", or  is it referring to the fact "a new set of strict rules emerged"?

Thak you.
  

Top answer

Its antecedent is 'a new set of strict rules'. If we had 'and' before that, it could refer to the mergence of the rules.

  • Its antecedent is 'a new set of strict rules'.
  • If we had 'and' before that, it could refer to the mergence of the rules.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
Its antecedent is 'a new set of strict rules'. If we had 'and' before that, it could refer to the mergence of the rules.
0
fivejedjonIts antecedent is 'a new set of strict rules'. If we had 'and' before that, it could refer to the mergence of the rules.
Thank you.

I wasn't sure about that one as the pronoun didn't follow directly. So, If we pushed the predicate to the end, as in:
".., so a new set of strict rules that rendered such offense a serious crim
0
A pronoun need not follow directly, right? If so (it needn't, that is), then how the two versions,
".., so a new set of strict rules that rendered such offense a serious crime with very heavy fine emerged."
and
".., so a new set of strict rules emerged that rendered such offense a serious crime with very heavy fine."
differ?

Thank you.
0
Surfer So, If we pushed the predicate to the end, as in:".., so a new set of strict rules that rendered such offense a serious crime with very heavy fine emerged.",then the sentence would still mean the same, right?
Yes

Related Questions