The impossible challenege

I still think it is open to interpretation. Let's give an example. Say you want to do something (lets call this Objective A). But in order to do Objective A, you must do something else (we will call this Objective B). You then say "I am completing my objective.". Then the question arises, are you referring to Objective A, or Objective B?

A very nice attempt, however, there is no way of knowing if the two parts of the sentence are related because THE CONTEXT IS UNKNOWN. For example, lets say Rudolfo could either use his bat to complete an objective, or find a particular object to complete the same objective. In this context the term "it" is unspecified. This interpretation does not accurately describe what the original statement was trying to say and therefore is incorrect.

What a load of ****.

It's perfectly obvious that 'it' refers to the bat.

Obvious or not, it is possible to view "it" as an unspecified thing (whether or not the person is trying to see it this way is irrelevant). As i have stated and continue to state, the obviousness of the implications of the statement does not matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not the statement can be interpreted in one or more ways. In this case, despite the obviousness of the implications of the statement, the statement can still be seen from more than one perspective.

Armed with bats, James and Rudolfo battered the dead horse and then turned their attention to.......

Unable to find his own bat - which he fondly referred to as 'Bertie the baseball bat' - Rudolfo asked James to help him find 'Bertie the baseball bat'.

There is no way of knowing whether or not 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the second part of the sentence is the same thing as 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the third part of the sentence. For example: Imagine there is a cube and a sphere. Both the cube, and the sphere, are called 'Freddi'. In that scenario if i write "Freddi fell off of a table today.", then there is no way of knowing whether i am referring to the cube or the sphere (end of example). Just because Rudolfo calls his bat 'Bertie the baseball bat' doesn't mean that there isn't another thing, that is not Rudolfo's bat, that is also called 'Bertie the baseball bat'. Now, it does say that Rudolfo was unable to find his own bat, and said it in a manner which implies that everything after that would have to be related to Rudolfo's bat in some way. This is true, however, we can another argument. What if finding 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the third part of the sentence is just a step to finding 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the second part of the sentence (we already established that 'Bertie the baseball bat' could be referring to two different things, the bat, and an unknown object). For example: You want to complete Objective A. In order to complete Objective A, you must first complete Objective B. The problem arises when Objective A and Objective B are both normally referred to as just The Objective. If you say "I am going to complete The Objective.", then the question becomes, were you referring to Objective A, or Objective B? (end of example) The same argument can be applied here. In order to find 'Bertie the baseball bat' that is mentioned in the second part of the sentence, I must first find 'Bertie the baseball bat' that is mentioned in the third part of the sentence. Now when you say "I am going to find 'Bertie the baseball bat'.", the question becomes, were you referring to 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the second part of the sentence, or were you referring to 'Bertie the baseball bat' in the third part of the sentence? Both are equally valid. Both are equally valid because every assumption made about the situation Rudolfo and James are in is plausible. This is because we do not know the full situation that James and Rudolfo are in. It is because of this that Rudolfo could be referring to two different things that are both called 'Bertie the baseball bat'. This allows for two different interpretations of the statement, and therefore, the statement does not work.

What's the point

Ambiguous sentences are common and their analysis ( by Chomsky et al) led to a differentiation between 'surface structure' and 'deep structure' together with extensions of the concept of 'grammar' beyond using single sentences as ultimate analysis units.
In 'real life' as opposed to word games, potential ambiguity is resolved by context.

Chomsky examples
Flying planes can be dangerous.
Visiting relatives can be tedious.

This whole question was pretty stupid to start with, but now you're just being ******* ridiculous.

How about this:

Despite being embarrassed about not keeping track of his own personal effects, Rodolpho nevertheless embarrassed himself by asking James to help find his bad.

How is this:

Despite being embarrassed about failing to keep track of his own personal effects, Rodolpho nevertheless embarrassed himself by asking James to help find his bat

Rudolfo asked James, "Can you help find my bat?"

Funny how glitcher thinks that there is ambiguity over whose bat is being discussed, but there's no doubt whatsoever that the bat in question is a baseball and not a cricket bat.

This is a good point, so for the sake of it even having a chance of being possible, we should just assume it is a baseball bat.

Why should we? Cricket is a far more popular sport, played all over the World.

Shouldn't that be: Visiting relatives can be dangerous.

Having criticized others for losing their own things, Rudolpho was humbled at the prospect of having to ask James if he could find his bat.

Your thoughts . . .

What if in this case, James is a person with authority? Let's say James is the baseball coach and Rudolfo is a baseball player. Rudolfo lost his bat before the game started, and had to ask James for permission to find it. And thus creating more than one way to interpret it.

Maybe it should be required that the type of bat that is being used is clarified.

Well, let's say that James is not a person of authority.

Having criticized others for losing their own things, Rudolpho was humbled at the prospect of having to ask his friend, James, if he could find his bat.

Now what?