It is currently 10 Dec 2017, 20:59

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 784

Kudos [?]: 486 [0], given: 33

Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2010, 03:02
As explained above by BKimball, "should" is used for obligation and can't be replaced with probability. So, we are down to C and D.

....Every nine years..... while each year ---> parallel construction.

Also, "will strike one human being" in option C seems awkward to me.

OA = D
_________________

http://drambedkarbooks.com/

Kudos [?]: 486 [0], given: 33

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 217

Kudos [?]: 232 [0], given: 5

Location: Boston
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2010, 04:36
I'm sorry to hammer this point, but I just wanted to reassert the fact that one of the definitions of "should" is exactly to express a probability or expectation. From Mirriam-Webster:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Definition of SHOULD
past of shall
1
—used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die — Gen 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2
—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> <this is as it should be — H. L. Savage> <you should brush your teeth after each meal>
3
—used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow>
4
—used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>

5
—used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>


From Oxford:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
should (should)

Pronunciation:/SHo͝od/
modal verb (3rd sing. should

2. used to indicate what is probable


I'm not just making this up. The second half of the sentence suggests that the study isn't conclusive, but that the scientists EXPECT that something SHOULD happen, so why would the first half be different? That's how I read the sentence - "The scientists believe that x should happen and that y is expected to happen". Changing it to WILL happen changes the original meaning of the sentence - "The scientists KNOW that x will happen and that y MIGHT happen".

Kudos [?]: 232 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 12

Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2011, 17:52
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite,
while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.
(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite

I am a little bit confused here. When I state something in the past, shouldn't we always use "would", an option not given by the answer choices?
He said he would go on buy some milk--> Not--> He said he would go on buy some milk
They concluded if the robber gets caught, he would go to jail --> Not--> They concluded if the robber gets caught, he will go to jail

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 12

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 25

Re: Meteorite [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2011, 18:00
I picked C. I guess wrong. Would appreciate experts explanation.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 25

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 672

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 37

Re: Meteorite [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2011, 19:10
+1 for D .

should is an indicator of obligation. It is wrong in this sentence. Hence A, B and E are out.

every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite,
while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects=> the two bold parts are in parallel .

Crick

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 37

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 672

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 37

Re: Meteorite [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2011, 19:16
heyholetsgo wrote:
I am a little bit confused here. When I state something in the past, shouldn't we always use "would", an option not given by the answer choices?
He said he would go on buy some milk--> Not--> He said he would go on buy some milk
They concluded if the robber gets caught, he would go to jail --> Not--> They concluded if the robber gets caught, he will go to jail


The general rule of usage is Past + Conditional(would) OR Present + future(will). In the given problem, the findings of the Scientists is a general truth, hence we need Present here. eg

The scientists have found that milky way is shrinking.

Crick

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 37

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Back to (GMAT) Times Square!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 25

Location: United States (IL)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Meteorite [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2011, 22:56
My reasoning might be wrong, but I picked D! Well, yesterday only I read that we must avoid 'should' and 'must' and here we have 4 'should's. Also, we need passive voice for parallelism.

Also, I do not think that things are happening in past, the author is just talking about certain things that are probable.
_________________

Working towards a goal...
V.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 25

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 3

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Schools: LBS '16 (M)
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.7
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2012, 16:30
CheriInfinite wrote:
Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.


(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite


one can easily eliminate the answer options with should as the meteorite strikin the human bein is in no way mandatory..
it is a mere prediction and hence , only will can be used..
among the 2 options havin will.. D sounds good ..plus is idiomatic



Just to add to this - also look at "C" in terms of parallelism. It is not parallel to the rest of the sentence. Another reason to choose D over C.
_________________

That 700.. I can taste it

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 3

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1387

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 916

Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2013, 08:41
we are in the gmat world, not in the world of Oxford or general grammar.

Manhantan expert said this clearly.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 916

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10151

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Dec 2013, 00:33
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Work hard in silence, let success make the noise
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 84

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 540 Q50 V15
GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V27
GPA: 3.11
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Dec 2013, 03:33
I would go with D since it is the most appropriate answer of all.
_________________

Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "+1 KUDOS" icon.
My IELTS 7.5 Experience
From 540 to 640...Done with GMAT!!!
http://www.sahilchaudhary007.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 84

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 11

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2014, 04:54
noboru wrote:
198. Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.

(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite



Request experts to guide when to use should ?With examples would be beeter
I am confused , I interpreted the OS as must hence choose E over D .Rest other options I eliminated based on parallelism issue.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 11

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2384

Kudos [?]: 9414 [0], given: 347

Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2014, 21:44
purnima wrote:
noboru wrote:
198. Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.

(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite



Request experts to guide when to use should ?With examples would be beeter
I am confused , I interpreted the OS as must hence choose E over D .Rest other options I eliminated based on parallelism issue.


Dear Purnima,

Thank you for your query. :)

I would like to request you to kindly post your meaning analysis of the original sentence, the correct answer and the choice(s) that confused you. This way, we’ll be able to productively take forward our discussion and your learnings from the same will be more thorough.

Regards,
Neeti.
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9414 [0], given: 347

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 417 [1], given: 886

Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2014, 10:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
egmat wrote:
purnima wrote:
noboru wrote:
198. Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.

(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite



Request experts to guide when to use should ?With examples would be beeter
I am confused , I interpreted the OS as must hence choose E over D .Rest other options I eliminated based on parallelism issue.


Dear Purnima,

Thank you for your query. :)

I would like to request you to kindly post your meaning analysis of the original sentence, the correct answer and the choice(s) that confused you. This way, we’ll be able to productively take forward our discussion and your learnings from the same will be more thorough.

Regards,
Neeti.


Hi Neeti,

I came across this question on gmatclub and am posting the analysis from my side.

Meaning:

Canadian scientists have calculated that
each human being should be struck by a meteorite every nine years
and also calculated that sixteen building should be damaged each year because of the meteorite.

Error analysis:

Use of one human being is incorrect - it seems to suggest that only one human being will be hit by a meteorite every nine years. Usage of each would be much better in this case.
Use of should also is incorrect - it indicates that the meteorite should hit the human being instead of wording in a way that the based on calculation of the scientists this is a probability.

POE

(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
incorrect for the reasons stated above.
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
usage of should is incorrect , this sentence seems to suggest that the action of striking a human being should always happen.
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
usage of one human being is incorrect - this seems to suggest that a meteorite will strike only one human being every 9 years.
this is not the intended meaning of the sentence.
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite.
Correct
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite
usage of should is incorrect because of reasons mentioned above.


Can you please let me know if my understanding is correct in the above question.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Kudos [?]: 417 [1], given: 886

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10151

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2014, 14:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 26

Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.83
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2015, 10:17
IMO - D

Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.

>> The non-underline portion (in while part) starts with each year .....so, for correct parallelism, we need noun of first part to be some year similar to second part. D & E only has correct noun parallel. However, in E, use of should is implying some moral ground, which is incorrect.

(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 26

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10151

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 19:48
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10151

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2016, 07:53
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 559

Location: United States
WE: Web Development (Computer Software)
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2016, 09:54
heyholetsgo wrote:
Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite,
while each year sixteen buildings can be expected to sustain damage from such objects.
(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite


(A) one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite
(B) a human being should be struck by a meteorite once in every nine years
(C) a meteorite will strike one human being once in every nine years - logically "such objects" in the non-underlined part should refer to an object such as "a meteorite", not "nine years". Also, "once in every nine years" is not grammatical.
(D) every nine years a human being will be struck by a meteorite - correct
(E) every nine years a human being should be struck by a meteorite

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 559

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Oct 2016
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 11

Location: China
Concentration: Healthcare, Entrepreneurship
WE: Sales (Health Care)
Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2017, 19:36
should means "could happen" only in the "if" clause
but i still don't agree that "will" can be used as uncertainty event.
_________________

LSAT CR is driving me mad

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 11

Re: Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being   [#permalink] 26 Jan 2017, 19:36

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 52 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Canadian scientists have calculated that one human being

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.