The pronoun her does not specify which of the two people the cat belongs to. In this sentence it is unclear whether the cat is Kathy's or Terry's.
divided pronoun reference
The antecedent problem in this sentence is the unclear pronoun reference. It is ambiguous whether "it" refers to the apple or something else, creating confusion about the action being described. Clarifying the pronoun reference would help improve the sentence's clarity.
I had the same problem because my xbox was on an unlevel surface. If this isn't the problem, maybe you should try calling customer support.
Oh, dude, the kid is scratching his head because he probably has an itchy scalp. Like, maybe he didn't wash his hair for a week or he's got some pesky lice hanging out up there. Or who knows, maybe he's just trying to solve a really tough math problem and his brain is overheating.
He was known as cognizant Zack because whenever there is a problem, he is the one who helps solve the problem.
In the first sentence, there is a problem in verb tense, because "were" is past tense, but "see" is present tense. In the second sentence, there is a problem in number, because "Maria and Tomas" is plural and needs a plural verb, but "goes" is singular.
I visited the consulate in Montpellier because I had a problem with my visa.
I uttered during the problem because i was nervous!
That's your problem.
The pronouns in the sentence are: most, that, and who.None of these have a vague pronoun reference. The reference for each of these pronouns are:most - an indefinite pronoun that takes the place of a noun for an exact number of students.that - a demonstrative pronoun which refers to 'classes' that are asynchronous.who - a relative pronoun that introduces a relative clause that gives information about its antecedent 'students'.
'this stagnant problem' is not a sentence; a sentence requires a subject and a verb. This phrase could be the subject of a sentence if you add a verb:This stagnant problem has bothered us long enough.
The new reference book was rejected by critics as incomprehensive; it was far too limited in its coverage.