Sentence Correction

Sentence:
Today's technology allows manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their production history

In the above sentence, what is the antecedent of their? Does it refer to small cars or does it refer to manufacturers.
I will also be interested in knowing a proper technique to identify the Antecedent of the pronoun,
which becomes tricky for me in some cases. How do other people arrive at the antecedent?

Another Example: In 1985, the United Nations declared the Roman aqueduct of Segovia a Heritage of Humanity, prompting the Spanish government to begin renovations on the aqueduct, which had been deteriorating since its initial construction nearly 2000 years earlier

here which refers to the closest noun aqueduct, however one may also perceive with the way that it is written to be referring to renovations on the aqueduct(I know this one doesnot makes logical sense , i.e. renovations deteriorating , but no clear antecedent for which).

Could someone throw some insight on this issue.

Replies shall be deeply appreciated!!

gauravprashar17 wrote:Sentence:
Today's technology allows manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their production history

In the above sentence, what is the antecedent of their? Does it refer to small cars or does it refer to manufacturers.

There is no clear antecedent in that sentence, which is flawed in multiple ways, including its containing the contorted pseudo comparison that uses the adjective fuel-efficient and pronoun those.

Another Example: In 1985, the United Nations declared the Roman aqueduct of Segovia a Heritage of Humanity, prompting the Spanish government to begin renovations on the aqueduct, which had been deteriorating since its initial construction nearly 2000 years earlier

here which refers to the closest noun aqueduct, however one may also perceive with the way that it is written to be referring to renovations on the aqueduct(I know this one doesnot makes logical sense , i.e. renovations deteriorating , but no clear antecedent for which).

In this sentence, the word which after aqueduct begins the modifier which had been deteriorating... A noun modifier like that always modifies the closest noun and generally is placed next to the noun it modifies. In this case aqueduct is the closest noun and is clearly the noun being modified.

So do we derive at the antecedent of the pronoun by the logical inference technique.
Am i correct in stating this?

Also could you tell what is the problem with using those in the 1st sentence?

gauravprashar17 wrote:So do we derive at the antecedent of the pronoun by the logical inference technique.
Am i correct in stating this?

Also could you tell what is the problem with using those in the 1st sentence?

In general one does use something along the lines of logical inference to connect a pronoun with an antecedent. At the same time that specific sentence contains a modifier starting with which. In general, in a correctly, and logically, constructed sentence, such a modifier and the which simply refer to the closest noun.

The problem in the first sentence, the one about the cars, is not the choice of the word those. The problem is that the comparison is ill constructed, illogical and nonsensical.

Look at this. more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their production history

What is being compared to what?

Are they making more small cars than they have made at any other time?

Are they making cars that are more fuel-efficient than those of other times?

Is fuel-efficient being compared with those?

To make it correct one could reverse the placement of small cars and fuel-efficient and then clean up the rest of the wording to create this.

Today's technology allows manufacturers to make small cars which are more fuel-efficient than are those made at any other time in production history

Now the comparison being made is correctly between small cars and those. These small cars are more fuel-efficient than are those made at any other time in production history.

The last of the doubts , so in this comparison
"more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their production history"
you have introduced a verb made between those and any

thus the sentence becomes more fuel-efficient small cars than those made at any other time in their production history.

In this newly created sentence with the made appended, does this ensures a logical comparison?

Does it not compares the recently made fuel efficient cars with those that were made at any other time.?

Also , in the latter case, as i believe the sentence would still be wrong because of the pronoun "their" , which donot have a clear antecedent?

The last of the doubts , so in this comparison
"more fuel-efficient small cars than those at any other time in their production history"
you have introduced a verb made between those and any

thus the sentence becomes more fuel-efficient small cars than those made at any other time in their production history.

In this newly created sentence with the made appended, does this ensures a logical comparison?

Does it not compares the recently made fuel efficient cars with those that were made at any other time.?

Be careful. You need to be careful with pretty much every word in sentence correction.

That's not exactly what I said. I said this.

Today's technology allows manufacturers to make small cars which are more fuel-efficient than are those made at any other time in production history.

That is a logical comparison. It says in essence small cars which are more fuel-efficient than are fuel-efficient those made at any other time in production history.

In my original corrected version, the second fuel-efficient is understood without having to be actually said.

Finally, yes, it correctly compares the small cars made now with those made at any other time.

Also, in the latter case, as i believe the sentence would still be wrong because of the pronoun "their", which do not have a clear antecedent?

Notice, I didn't include the their in the corrected version. It's unnecessary and basically meaningless.