Misunderstandings that revolve around equivocal and relative language can all be clarified by
a. clearer punctuation of perceptual events
b. more interpersonal and less impersonal communication
c. replacing abstract terms with concrete ones
d. static definitions
e. sequential placement

- Replacing abstract terms with concrete ones.

Explanation:

Equivocal or relative language requires contextual clues to understand the actual meaning as implied by the author. Such meanings require prior understanding or contextual understanding as they are implicit and needs to be inferred which becomes difficult and leads to misunderstanding when there is a use of equivocal or ambiguous language.

As per the question, the misunderstandings could be clarified by 'replacing abstract terms with the concrete ones' as it would help provide a literal and explicit meaning that would clarify the misconceptions associated with the ambiguous language and make it more convenient for the readers to understand the meaning effectively.

waves come crashing to grey sullen shores.

powerful and strong, it breathes and roars.

cascading and caressing each grain of sand,

a warm embrace between sea and land.

high above, a seagull soars high.

wings of purity it spreads to fly.

battling high against darkened cloud,

in a wind that blows fiercely, flying graceful and proud.

beneath, the sand is soft and warm.

sculpted by nature, it's weathered the storm.

a passionate battle between calmness and rage,

a new chapter's beginning; don't turn the last page.

i listen again to the whispering waves,

music of nature calming and brave.

its power unknown, its stillness untamed,

mysterious and magical, a treasure earth claims.

plz mark brainliest

explanation:

to eliminate ambiguous remote or broad reference it is necessary to focus on anaphoric reference. by definition "anaphoric reference means that a word in a text refers back to other ideas in the text for its meaning." the references should be clear and leave no room for ambiguity.

in the first case the pronoun it probably refers to the car but it has not been mentioned before so we should replace it for the car. in doing so the statement becomes clear.

in sentence number   two   the pronoun he refers to charles dickens the author. yet, the first half of the sentence is about the book a tale of two cities. to repair this it would be better to rephrase the first half : after i read   a tale of two cities by dickens, he so as to remove the remote reference.