Referent “it”, “this”, "they" etc

[vinversa]

MGMAT instructors - please advise if Rule (1) holds good - for all "it", "they", "this" etc referent - cases

Rule 1:
When "it", "this" etc occurs in two different clauses (sentences) separated by a comma, then "it", "this", "they" refer to the SUBJECT of the preceding sentence/clause. (like example below)

As you see - example:0 below seems to follow Rule 1.

example:0
Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.
[["New Maritime Code" Subject of the first sentence - is Antecedent of "it". ]]


Anomaly below -
Please advise why these two sentences (example 1& 2) don't follow the above Rule 1.
[editor: the simplest, and best, explanation is "because Rule 1 isn't a real rule".
see below.
--ron]

example:1
Before scientists learned how to synthesize the growth hormone, it had to be painstakingly removed in small amounts from the pituitary glands of human cadavers.


example:2
During the same period in which the Maya were developing a hieroglyphic system of writing, the Aztec people (plural) also developed a written language (singular), but it (singular)was not as highly sophisticated as that of the Maya and was more pictographic in nature.

Ron wrote:
"The Aztec people" is plural, and so cannot be the antecedent of the singular pronoun "it".
Reasons:
1, "people" is plural by default. there are certain very specific instances in which "people" is singular, but those are exceptional.
2, "the Maya", appearing earlier in the sentence, is also plural, and the two concepts are parallel.
That leaves "a written language" as the unique antecedent.

[RonPurewal]

it's not going to be worth your time to try to work out specific rules for ambiguous pronouns; any such rules would be at best frustratingly complex, and at worst internally inconsistent. (note that you've already come up with two exceptions to the "rule" you've propounded here; that's a pretty strong indicator that your proposed rule is not, in fact, valid.)

instead, when you are faced with an ambiguous pronoun, the best course of action -- a rule to which we have so far found no exceptions -- is simply to see what are the alternatives in the other answer choices:

IF YOU SEE AN AMBIGUOUS PRONOUN:
* if there are OTHER ANSWER CHOICES that REPLACE THE AMBIGUOUS PRONOUN WITH A SPECIFIC NOUN, then eliminate the ambiguous pronoun.
* if there are no such choices, then DON'T eliminate the ambiguous pronoun.

see here for more details, and for examples of both sides of this rule:
post40400.html#p40400