"He wants this sandwich because it has chicken."
Translation:Él quiere este sándwich porque tiene pollo.
lo is a direct object pronoun, so lo tiene pollo means "chicken has it". You could say él tiene pollo---meaning "it has chicken" (the sandwich). But since él already refers to the guy, that could be quite confusing. Best to leave tiene by itself here.
How come the two verb rule doesn't apply here? Shouldn't "tiene" be "tener" because "quiere" was the first verb?
Any time you have a subordinate/dependent clause (basically another action set off by a conjunction, porque in this case), the verb is conjugated normally---though sometimes in the subjunctive.
The translation here leaves out valuable information: who has chicken? The subject (he) or the object (sandwich) of the prior clause? Google translates "it" as "eso". Is it appropriate to say "Él quiere este sándwich porque ESO tiene pollo"?
Eso (as a modern replacement for ello) translates to "it" only for unknown or genderless nouns or for concepts (like "He got fired because of it").
However here, both the guy and the sandwich are known and masculine, so the correct full translation would be Él quiere este sándwich porque él tiene pollo.
Now, as far as which él has the chicken, the general rule is that it refers to the one most recently mentioned---the sandwich in this case.
So you could rearrange the sentence to indicate the guy has the chicken: Porque tiene pollo, él quiere este sándwich. Although I suspect most people would still associate the chicken with the sandwich hehe.
I suppose if there's a case where pronoun confusion is inevitable (probably not so much this case in particular), we can always just repeat the noun to be safe. This is often true in English too. Thanks for the insight Dugggg!
My Spanish teacher from Argentina / our textbook used llevar as a possible verb to talk about ingredients present in certain dishes... but i got marked incorrect here. Any ideas?