Enginpasa1 wrote:i used the rational that "have" links with inventions and "it" links with drill.

two major problems with this:
1 (small-scale problem) the pronoun 'it' is ambiguous - no way around this fact. there are two singular nouns in the neighborhood (drill and silicosis), either of which is eligible to be the antecedent of the pronoun 'it'.** worse for you, 'silicosis' is MUCH closer to the pronoun in question, casting further doubt on the association between 'it' and drill.

2 (large-scale problem) the subject of the main clause is the plural 'modern inventions', and the pnuematic drill is cited as an EXAMPLE of those inventions. if you're going to create another clause in which the drill is the subject, you need to do so in a new sentence.

between these two, you should rely more heavily on the reasoning used in #1, because it's completely systematic: if you see a pronoun, go back and make sure that it has a UNIQUE antecedent. if it doesn't, it's wrong, period, end of story.

**you might complain that only one of the possible antecedents 'makes sense'. doesn't matter, though: you cannot create a sentence with two grammatically possible antecedents, even of one of the two creates an absurd meaning. in other words, you must be able to assign pronouns purely mechanically, without any recourse to common sense.

Enginpasa1 wrote:I messed up on the meaning of the sentence. IS there a way to get better at keeping the meaning clean and clear?

that's the eternal question. unfortunately, unless you are a native speaker of english, your only way to 'keep the meaning clean and clear' is to read lots and lots of things written in english, taking careful note of the way pronouns, modifying clauses, and the like are used.

whenever you encounter a question whose usage differs from what you know or think to be correct, TAKE NOTE. if you look for patterns often enough, they will emerge, and you'll have a better picture of proper english usage.