Each editor has certain obsessions which impact the writer. One of mine is the use of the word "it". In general, you will find that I strike out all uses of "it" as an editor. The reason has to do with clarity. The word "it" is really an indefinite pronoun that asks the reader to guess what is being referred to. In my experience, the word rarely refers to anything. An example or two might help. When I was writing this paragraph, I wanted to start the paragraph with the words, "It is only fair to warn you that I have a fetish about "it"." Think about this sentence for a moment. The phrase "It is only fair to warn you that" has no function. If the phrase is struck, the meaning of the sentence does not change, indeed the sentence is clarified. My writing is usually replete with the word "it" in my first and second drafts. If I consciously try to remove the word however, I find that the sentences are shorter and clearer. One strategy is to simply strike the "it phrase". Often the sentences meaning does not change. A second strategy is to repeat the word "it" refers to. This strategy adds emphasis to the idea. An example is a sentence I wrote earlier in this paragraph which is bolded. Compare the following:
If the phrase is struck, the meaning of the sentence does not change, indeed it is clarified.
If the phrase is struck, the sentence is clarified.
Although this is undoubtedly a trivial example, note that in the first sentence, the reader does not really know what the word "it" refers to. Reference could be to the phrase, the sentence, or the meaning. Removal of "it" and sentence shortening has clarified the idea. The same principle applies to other indefinite pronouns like "this". I challenge you to eliminate the word "it" and other indefinite pronouns from your writing.
How could the sentences from the following real student paper, be rewritten to eliminate indefinite pronouns and improve the paper?
Example 1.
"All three landfills studied were in different geologic environments, and all three were unlined. Their study shows an obvious correlation between leachate presence in the vadose zone, and the absence of leachate in the ground-water monitoring wells. This correlation, although abstract proves that in this case monitoring of the unsaturated zone provided proof that a source of potential contamination was present under the landfills, where as, monitoring of ground water alone, did not indicate any potential for contamination.
In this study, it is clear that vadose zone monitoring provided an early warning. The study also hypothesizes that placement of the monitoring wells was probably a factor that lead to no leachate being discovered when only saturated zone monitoring was used. Figures 3 and 4 both illustrate data collected in the study."
Example 2.
"Water vapor constitutes 70-95% of all gasses released from volcanic sources (Fischer, 1997). These emissions are not likely to do any damage directly. It is likely that water was made abundant in the oceans of the world by this process. It is also possible that outgasing of water vapor may contribute to lahars and may melt ice caps causing mudflows, starting sediment gravity flows and liquefaction."