Which version resolves the pronoun reference in a sentence about a car and a mailbox?

• A. Since the car hit the mailbox, the mailbox has not looked the same.
• B. Since the car hit the mailbox, the car has not looked the same.
• C. The car, since it hit the mailbox, has not looked the same.
• D. It hasn't looked the same since the car hit the mailbox.

Answer: (B)

The important idea here is pronoun reference clarity. When a sentence mentions two nouns—the car and the mailbox—using a vague pronoun like it can make it unclear which noun the pronoun refers to. To avoid ambiguity, the sentence should clearly name the thing whose appearance changed.

Choosing the version that repeats the noun keeps the antecedent explicit: since the car hit the mailbox, the car has not looked the same. By stating “the car” in both parts, there’s no doubt that it’s the car’s appearance that changed after the collision.

Other options introduce ambiguity or awkward structure. Using it without a clear antecedent can leave you unsure whether it refers to the car, the mailbox, or the situation as a whole. A construction like the car, since it hit the mailbox, has not looked the same is awkward and still relies on a pronoun reference inside the clause. Omitting the pronoun entirely and mentioning only the mailbox would shift what’s being described, which isn’t the focus if the goal is to resolve which item’s appearance changed.