Just a small doubt in Option C: Isn't "they" the subject of the second clause, just as in Option A, and would STILL unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Does the second clause need to START with "they" in order to unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Thanks
It's pronoun week here in the verbal forum! For those of you who missed it, we went through this question -- and three other pronoun-related SC questions -- in our live YouTube session this past Monday. The video is available
here.
Quote:
(A) they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
This looks pretty good. On the surface, you could argue that "they" is ambiguous: it could refer back to "investors" or "depressed property values." But as we've discussed in
another recent QOTD, "they" is the subject of the second clause in the sentence, and it can refer unambiguously to the subject of the first clause ("depressed property values"). So let's keep (A).
Quote:
(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
"They" is quietly perfectly OK here (see above), but "their" is a problem: does it refer back to "homeowners"? Or does "their" refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values"? Murky stuff.
There's also no reason to use "in that their", when we could use the much clearer modifier "whose." And "can potentially" is redundant. So (A) is definitely better than (B).
Quote:
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.
Quote:
(D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
Oh good: a straight elimination. "It" has no referent. I'm happy. (D) is gone.
Quote:
(E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose
Same pronoun issue as (D), plus "can potentially" is redundant. So (E) is gone, too. (A) is the winner.