Considering it’s a statement issued by the university, I’m going to say that electricity was restored to the university. I can’t imagine them making a statement about the condition of the barge…
You’re not at fault in your assumption. They were talking about the barge in one sentence, and then electricity being restored in the following sentence. They should have clarified in the latter sentence the subject to which the electricity was restored; eg “electricity was restored to the University….” It’s ironic that an institute of higher learning used such bad grammar.
Considering it’s a statement issued by the university, I’m going to say that electricity was restored to the university. I can’t imagine them making a statement about the condition of the barge…
Wait, right. I don’t know why I read that as if they were involved somehow.
You’re not at fault in your assumption. They were talking about the barge in one sentence, and then electricity being restored in the following sentence. They should have clarified in the latter sentence the subject to which the electricity was restored; eg “electricity was restored to the University….” It’s ironic that an institute of higher learning used such bad grammar.