Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford

[750plus]

I don't know how you stay patient and reply with such courtesy even after being asked about the same problem by different individuals.

Well, that's a trait of an excellent teacher.

(:

'being asked about the same problem' can be annoying—but only if the same individual keeps asking. ('yes, i know you just said that X is true... but, is X true?')
even then, this forum is one of my professional duties. fortunately, i don't find it difficult to stay professional in my replies.

the pink comment is especially ironic because, if different individuals DIDN'T ask about the same problem(s), our business could not exist!

Well, I have to be careful with the text I write.

Regrads

[RonPurewal]

it's always good to write carefully.

[AndyH539]

Dear Instructor,
Is (B) also wrong because of "should". Is acceptable to use "should" with "recommend"?

Thanks always
Regards

Andy



In 1984 medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities concluded that sedentary life-styles lead to heart and lung diseases that shorten lives, strongly recommending middle-aged people to undertake some form of regular exercise.

(A). strongly recommending middle-aged people to
(B). strongly recommending that middle-aged people should
(C). and strongly recommended for middle-aged people to
(D). and their strong recommendation was for middle-aged people to
(E). and they strongly recommended that middle-aged people

[750plus]

Dear Instructor,
Is (B) also wrong because of "should". Is acceptable to use "should" with "recommend"?

Thanks always
Regards
Andy

yes, that's incorrect. 'should' means moral obligation and recommend and should are redundant here.

[tim]

You cannot use "recommend" with "should" here.

[RonPurewal]

750plus—
please DO NOT answer questions as though you were a moderator.
that's not how this forum works.

'should' means moral obligation

...not necessarily.
if someone says that you should eat vegetables, then that's a perfectly valid usage of 'should'... even though your diet has nothing to do with moral values.

[750plus]

750plus—
please DO NOT answer questions as though you were a moderator.
that's not how this forum works.

I'm sorry, I just tried to put in my view on the same. I didn't know that it is not allowed.

I apologise for the same.

Warm Regards

[750plus]

750plus—
please DO NOT answer questions as though you were a moderator.
that's not how this forum works.

'should' means moral obligation

...not necessarily.
if someone says that you should eat vegetables, then that's a perfectly valid usage of 'should'... even though your diet has nothing to do with moral values.

I'd like to quote the text from Manhattan Guide here -

On the GMAT, should almost always means “moral obligation,” not “likelihood.” In everyday speech, you can say The train should arrive now to mean that the train is likely to arrive now, but the GMAT doesn’t agree with this usage.

On this basis, I wrote the same.

Warm Regards

[tim]

Apologies for any confusion. Please keep in mind that the book is a static reference, and Ron is offering more up to date advice. I have learned through the years that Ron is way more reliable than the books, so you will do better to pay attention to what he says here if it supersedes what is in the books.

[750plus]

Apologies for any confusion. Please keep in mind that the book is a static reference, and Ron is offering more up to date advice. I have learned through the years that Ron is way more reliable than the books, so you will do better to pay attention to what he says here if it supersedes what is in the books.

Thanks Tim.

Well, you can suggest the change (if required) to the responsible team.

Regards

[RonPurewal]

well, the book is accurate inasmuch as 'should' is not acceptable (in formal usage) as a way of saying 'will most likely...' (e.g., The train should be here any minute now).

my point is just that 'moral' is WAY too specific.

• CAN 'should' refer to moral duties?
sure.

• MUST it?
no, of course not.

'should' can refer to ANY kind of 'duty' or 'obligation'.
e.g., there is an abundance of 'should's in the intro part of the OG sentence correction chapter—e.g., Modifiers should be positioned so that... obviously this has nothing to do with morals. rather, the 'duty' here is the duty to express oneself as clearly as possible.

also, 'should' can refer to the best course of action in general (without regard to any sense of duty).
e.g., Coaches still do not agree on how much, or even whether, athletes should stretch before practices.

moreover, on a test like the gmat—on which EVERY sentence is written in a detached, formal, third-person style—there is basically zero chance that the content will have anything to do with 'morals'. that's the main reason why i found that phrasing so weird: not only does it pick just one of many possible meanings, but it picks one that almost certainly WON'T apply on the exam!

[RonPurewal]

...and let's not forget a totally different kind of 'should'—to represent a future hypothetical that the speaker/writer considers unlikely. (that's wonderfully specific, hm.)

analogy:

PAST VERSION:
If I had known about the traffic, I would have told you to take a different route.
If I had been in your neighborhood, I would have visited you.

PRESENT VERSION:
If I knew how to open the lock, I would tell you. (note the similarity of 'knew' to a past-tense form, even though it is NOT a past-tense form—it's 'imagining that something is true at present, even though it isn't')
If I were rich, I would give $1 million to charity.

FUTURE VERSION:
If I should go to Australia, I will visit Richard.
Should I go to Australia, I will visit Richard.
these sentences imply that i'm describing an UNLIKELY SITUATION. i.e., those two sentences imply that i probably won't go to australia.
(if there is a decent chance that i will go to australia, then it's 'If I GO to Australia, I will visit Richard'.)

this is pretty much an exact analogue of the (presumably more familiar) past and present forms above.
the only difference is that, for the past and present, we use these forms for things that are/were DEFINITELY not true.
since it's normally impossible to be certain about what will/won't obtain in the future, the future 'should' implies 'unlikely' BUT NOT 'impossible'.

[750plus]

...and let's not forget a totally different kind of 'should'—to represent a future hypothetical that the speaker/writer considers unlikely. (that's wonderfully specific, hm.)

analogy:

PAST VERSION:
If I had known about the traffic, I would have told you to take a different route.
If I had been in your neighborhood, I would have visited you.

PRESENT VERSION:
If I knew how to open the lock, I would tell you. (note the similarity of 'knew' to a past-tense form, even though it is NOT a past-tense form—it's 'imagining that something is true at present, even though it isn't')
If I were rich, I would give $1 million to charity.

FUTURE VERSION:
If I should go to Australia, I will visit Richard.
Should I go to Australia, I will visit Richard.
these sentences imply that i'm describing an UNLIKELY SITUATION. i.e., those two sentences imply that i probably won't go to australia.
(if there is a decent chance that i will go to australia, then it's 'If I GO to Australia, I will visit Richard'.)

this is pretty much an exact analogue of the (presumably more familiar) past and present forms above.
the only difference is that, for the past and present, we use these forms for things that are/were DEFINITELY not true.
since it's normally impossible to be certain about what will/won't obtain in the future, the future 'should' implies 'unlikely' BUT NOT 'impossible'.

Thanks a lot Mr. Purewal for the clarification and the guidance.

No doubt, you are our saviour.

I have just one question - With deep courtesy, I'd like to ask you that are we not allowed to post answer to someone's question on the Forum (I'm assuming that we(the users) can be incorrect too) ?

I just did because I have seen a lot of students answering on the Forum. Please let me know if otherwise.

I would also ask you to lock this thread as this question appeared in my Paid Exam Pack yesterday. I don't know why the original poster posted it when it's not allowed to discuss Paid Prep Pack.

Many Thanks

Warm Regards

[RonPurewal]

I have just one question - With deep courtesy, I'd like to ask you that are we not allowed to post answer to someone's question on the Forum (I'm assuming that we(the users) can be incorrect too) ?

correct. on this forum, only we moderators should be answering the questions.

this is especially urgent on SC, where non-moderators' 'explanations' are virtually always wrong (and not just in trifling ways).

when non-moderators give 'explanations' that are inaccurate, i normally just delete them, to avoid cluttering up the discussions. i don't know what other moderators do. (if the same non-moderator keeps insisting on trying to answer other posters' questions then we'll eventually restrict that user's posting privileges, though i don't remember ever having to go that far.)

in the quant section this is less of an issue, since explanations by non-moderators are more likely to be ... well, not actually wrong. (:
still, it's not the way we run this forum.

[RonPurewal]

I would also ask you to lock this thread as this question appeared in my Paid Exam Pack yesterday. I don't know why the original poster posted it when it's not allowed to discuss Paid Prep Pack.

Many Thanks

Warm Regards

thank you for the heads-up.