I'd accept both as meaning the same.
The deletion is an example of parallelism in English. The predictable and repeated word is deleted. Many (most? all??) other languages allow for similar patterns. The grammar is not specfic to the word "one", which is why you may not have been able to find an explaination.
It appears on first reading that "lots of paper" should be understood as a plural noun (lots) modified by an of-genitive "of paper". However a better analysis would be that "lots of" is a determanitive phrase, with a similar function to "some" (similar function but different meaning)
He used some paper ...
If you have a countable noun, you can say (for example) a lot of things or (less formally) lots of things. Whichever you say, the pronoun is then they.
If you have a mass noun, you can say a lot of paper or (less formally) lots of papers. Whichever you say, the pronoun is then it.
("Paper" can also be countable in some cases, but that's ...
This is a case where what is actually being talked about is multiple, but we are using a word that takes singular forms ("paper" is uncountable, but it takes a singular pronoun). The singular is technically correct, but there's some leeway to use the plural. BrE has more of a tendency to use the plural in these cases. You can also say "He used ...
English is not my mother language but I will tell you my opinion!
In 'Syntax and Grammar of English Language' of P. Koutsoumpos I found the following :
That is my pencil.
That is your pencil.
That is his pencil.
That is its pencil.
That is our pencil.
That is their pencil.
The words my, your, his, her, its, our and their are ...
You can't use the phrase "let know" without a direct object. You have to say "let us know", "let them know", "let me know", "let the supervisor know", etc - not just "let know" on its own. It is transitive.
It is rare (and almost always unidiomatic) to use "let" in the ...
When you say "all big", you are using "all" as an adverb. In this use, it is typical of less formal English. It is sometimes casually as a general intensifier.
The adverbial use of "all" in the phrase "all gone" is standard English, and means "completely". And just like "completely" it does tend to ...
Though it's generally discouraged, this approach is acceptable in some rare cases.
Though generally discouraged, this approach is acceptable in some rare cases.
As BillJ pointed out, "it" in the first sentence is a pronoun rather than relative pronoun (who, whose, which, and that) for "this approach".
Both examples are fine, and I ...
I think Thomas a Kempis is right about referring to the soul as 'she'. The soul is God's breath, and so it is not a thing, whatever the actual usage may be. I think Thomas, who was a great mystic, had a good reason for choosing 'she'.
In silence and quiet the devout soul goeth forward and
learneth the hidden things of the Scriptures. Therein
findeth she a ...
Recall that the original rationale for granting patents was not to reward inventors with monopoly profits but to encourage them to share their inventions.
The goal stated here, which achieve can work with, is "encouraging them to share their inventions." So that is what the this has to point back to.
"The original rationale for granting ...
Neither version of your final sentence is particularly idiomatic.
"mightn’t" isn't often used in English. Choose "might not".
The meaning of "might" is to add an element of conditionality or uncertainty. This could best be accomplished as follows:
But not all of them will necessarily work for you.
Other options to be aware of, ...
When someone fits in somewhere, they make successful efforts to be acceptable, compatible, etc.
When I joined the team, I tried to fit in by learning everyone's names
and bringing doughnuts.
When another person fits me in, or other people fit me in somewhere, they make efforts or arrangements so that there is a place for me.
We wanted Joan in our team, ...
Both sentences are grammatically correct, but they mean different things.
They wanted me to fit in this world.
That means that they wanted it to be true that I would fit in this world.
They wanted to fit me in this world.
That means that they wanted to take steps to make me fit in this world. Of course, that also means they wanted me to fit.
(In that ...
In general, no, "that" cannot refer to a plural noun and should be changed to "those". While your example sentence doesn't sound too off to me, it would be more correct to use the word "those" in place of "that". Try putting the pronoun in front of the word it refers to and you can test how it sounds:
"and that ...
Technical writing often adopts special rules that differ from normal English to better suit special needs, which works as long as it’s consistent within the document and with other documents of the same style/type. The idea is that the time it takes a new reader to learn how to use the document will be outweighed by the time they save in all future ...
These are instructions. Instructions, orders etc are often abbreviated this way.
Think of the warning on the side of a bottle - "Do Not Drink". It doesn't need to say "do not drink this", because it's obvious that this is the contents of the bottle it is written on.
Likewise, in your example, there is no need for the pronoun because it is ...
There are two very different reasons that “them” could be incorrect.
The first is that “them” is an object pronoun, and we need here is a subject pronoun to go with the implied verb:
Although humans have highly developed brains, most animals have more acute senses than they [do].
However, in practice this rule is so widely violated that it may sound odd ...
The pronoun it is for a general statement.
It is my dream to visit France.
You and I are talking about France, and you then say:
That's my dream, to visit France. That = what is being discussed or said by you to me.
This dream you have, to visit France, not that other one to visit Australia. Will it come true, do you think?
This and that can refer to ...