IMO only A) makes sense. the republicans demand something from the christians. so it cannot be D), C) and E). B) is out because "it" refers to the "christians" which is plural.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

A shot for D.

C is wrong because it changes the meaning of the original
_________________

Regards,
Wunderbar03

Ans A

In a move that surprised many political analysts, Republicans were forced to yield to conservative Christians demanding that they should modify their party platform to reflect public concerns about social issues, including abortion.

A. demanding that they should

B. demanding it to

usage of it is wrong because we see "Their party "

C. and their demand to

it is like Republicans yoelded to Christians and to their Demand as well.though the statement is they Republicans yielded to only those who are demanding to modify.

D. who demanded that it
usage of it is wrong because we see "Their party "

E. who demanded it to
usage of it is wrong because we see "Their party "

How do you choose this - When do you apply the rule that it changes the meaning & when do you apply the ambguity rule

I pick A.
The referent of 'it' in B, C, D and E is unclear.
the referent of 'they' in A, is clear enough i think.

Thanks christoph. I will try to implement your logic but this pronoun reference is been eluding me for sometime now.

Supercat, Yes I do agree about A but isn't 'C' changing the intent of the original sentence, my understanding of the original sentence is that Republicans yielded to Christian's demand to modify their platform....' but your interpretation is that the Republicans yielded to Christians and their demand.

Normally we don`t say demand...should... but this happens to be the lesser of the five evils. "it" incorrectly refers to republicans, not the republican party. In C, "their" is confusing and redundant,

Hence, A.

That's completely unacceptable. First "It" cannot be a correct pronoun in this sentence. There is no antecedent that could take "it" as a pronoun -- it's not a question of ambiguity; there simply is no noun that could be represented by "it" at that point in the sentence. Plainly ungrammatical.

Second, the explanation is obviously wrong with respect to the word "reflect". The verb that follows "demanded that it" and that must be in subjunctive mood is "modify", not "reflect". "To reflect" is an infinitive acting as an adverb modifying modify (if that doesn't confuse you!), and so has nothing to do with the subjunctive mood.

There clearly was substantial editorial gaffe in producing this test question. I would guess that at some point this question was written to say something like: Republicans were forced to modify their party platform, yielding to Christians who demanded that it reflect public concerns....

No doubt an editor revised the question but overlooked revising the "correct" answer explanation. Trust me, editors do that.

ETS is too careful with published matter to make such mistakes, so this isn't from the official guide, is it? Must have come from a 3rd party like Princeton Review or Kaplan or something else?


In a move that surprised many political analysts, Republicans were forced to yield to conservative Christians who demanded that it modify their party platform to reflect public concerns about social issues, including abortion.

Vithal was correct on this, i do not know why he changed his answer. it is a plain subjunctive case, therefore D is ok if we follow ETS. Consider the following OG problem, which is pretty much the same as the one discussed here:

In one of the most stunning reversals in the history of marketing, the Coca-Cola company in July 1985 yielded to thousands of irate consumers demanding that it should bring back the original Coke formula.
(A) demanding that it should
(B) demanding it to
(C) and their demand to
(D) who demanded that it
(E) who demanded it to

D is OA here becasue it is case of subjunctive. if anybody sees any difference, pls explain.

I'm beating a dead horse on this one (there's an idiom for you guys), but the Coca Cola example is perfectly fine. In that sentence, "Coca Cola Company" does indeed make for an appropriate antecedent to it. That solves every problem, nothing wrong with (D) on THAT one.

But the political analyst sentence is not a precise parallel: In that sentence "it" has no possible antecedent, and that fact alone eliminates (D) beyond any debate. That is important: you must understand that "it" as used in the political analyst question choice (D) is utterly ungrammatical -- that is a very basic pronoun-agreement issue, there is no leeway about that, and if you do not understand that, you are doomed to miss many easy S/C questions.
(Yes the real problem here is that the question stem is badly written).

On the subjunctive mood issue, it is worth noting that this sentence does not at all require the subjunctive mood (which is what lead me to pick (C)).

Not if the sentence uses the noun demand, as opposed to the verb demanded.

In the sentence "Republicans yielded to a demand to modify the platform,"
that sentence is completely correct, it does NOT contain a subjunctive mood, and the infinitive "to modify" is merely an adjective for demand.

Ok I'll retire from this one