Nutritionists suggest that we should replace chips and

SUGGEST can be used in conjunction with SHOULD/MUST/WILL/MIGHT/CAN etc. This is NOT a repetition.
A search for ""suggest that we should"" gives 12M results in google.
If that doesn't convince you, look at OG 12 question number 13.

C it is : we replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw
veggies, fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.

mistakes are shown in bold :

A. we should replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies,
fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.
B. one replaces chips and sweetened soft drinks for healthier raw veggies, fruits,
whole-grain biscuits and low- fat cheese.
C. we replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw
veggies, fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.----------->correct
D. us replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies, fruits,
whole-grain biscuits or low-fat cheese.
E. we replace chips as well as sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies
including fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.

It's called subjunctive mood - something that the GMAT loves to test. Read up


First is with 'wish'; off the top of my head, 'wish' is the only word that uses this form.
I wish that he were here.
I wish that I had a million dollars
Use wish, that, and the past tense of the verb; if using 'to be' as the verb, always use were, regardless of the plurality of the object. This expresses contrary-to-fact desires

Second is the conditional.
If he were here, I would be happy.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a fur coat.
It uses if, were (or rarely another past-tense verb), and would, to express a condition and a consequence that are both contrary to fact.

Third is demands, requests, and suggestions.
I recommend that you work hard every day to prepare for the GMAT.
I suggest that you avoid real fur coats. They're cruel.
They use a word indicating an imperative to act in a contrary-to-fact manner, the word 'that', and the bare infinitive of the verb.

Intresting....

But please could you elaborate what exactly you are trying to say?

Thanks,
A

First take a look at the rules about command subjunctive:

Command subjunctive mood is used alongwith certain bossy verbs such as demand, require, propose etc. When such verbs are used the action that is demanded / required /proposed should take the command subjunctive mood, i.e. the raw form of verb, the form you would use to command someone something. e.g.

Be physically fit, Arunpriya!
I demand that you be physically fit.

Here demand is the bossy verb, and it requires a command subjunctive mood for the action demanded (be).

Another example ..... observe that the usage of simple present is wrong in the second sentence below!

Close the department !
The management requires that the department close....right.
The management requires that the department closes.... wrong !!
The management requires that the department should be closed... wrong again !

Here requires is the bossy verb, and it requires a command subjunctive mood for the action required (close)


Now coming back to your query.......

TheGMATGameRussia is trying to say that we can use should instead of the hypothetical subjunctive alon with a bossy verb - i.e. following usage is correct:

The management requires that the department should be closed.

It is true that the above usage is seen in British English, but in strict GMAT terms generally the command subjunctive form is valid with a bossy verb. Nonetheless as TheGMATGameRussia pointed out the British style may have been used in a rare occasion - cannot cross-check since I do not have the OG12.

Nutritionists suggest that we should replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies, fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.

A subjunctive mood issue.


A. we should replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies, fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese. --- 'should replace' is wrong in subjunctive mood

B. one replaces chips and sweetened soft drinks for healthier raw veggies, fruits,whole-grain biscuits and low- fat cheese. ... 1. replaces is wrong in the subjunctive. 2. replace for is a wrong idiom. replace with is the correct usage.

C. we replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies, fruits, whole-grain biscuits and low-fat cheese.... Answer choice

D. us replace chips and sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies, fruits,whole-grain biscuits or low-fat cheese. ... 1. 'suggest us replace' is ungrammatical. 2. or low fat cheese is altered meaning.

E. we replace chips as well as sweetened soft drinks with healthier raw veggies including fruits, whole-grain biscuits, and low-fat cheese ... 1.replace chips as well as soft drinks is incorrect. Both are equal-weight components and hence the conjunction 'and' is necessary. 2. veggies including blah, blah is an altered intent as if veggies include fruits, biscuits, and cheese.

I have a doubt (may sound very silly):
In "We should replace chips...." 'we' is a pronoun, but there is no antecedent for "we".
What I am missing here?
Due Regards.

Hi himanshu0077.

That question isn't silly at all. After all, in the GMAT prep world, we constantly hear about sentences being incorrect because pronouns don't have logical antecedents.

At the same time, it's actually not incorrect for there to be no antecedent of a pronoun in a sentence. After all, we use sentences like "He is funny," or "They arrived early," and people don't call them out as incorrect.

Here's the thing. The antecedent of a pronoun can appear in a previous sentence, as does the antecedent of "he" in the following example:

John bought a used bicycle. Then, he repaired it expertly.

Also, the antecedent of a pronoun can be understood. For instance, you and I could be watching two people dance, and you could say "They dance very well," without saying who "they" are.

In fact, in the following official SC question, there is no antecedent of "they."

https://gmatclub.com/forum/whether-they ... 21384.html

So, when an SC sentence version is incorrect because a pronoun lacks a logical antecedent, the issue isn't simply that there's a pronoun in the sentence without an antecedent in the same sentence. Rather, what's going on is that the pronoun is used in a way that is illogical.

Hello himanshu0077,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in such contexts, "we" can function as an indefinite pronoun, one that refers to a non-specific entity; here, "we" refers to all people in general.

Such usage of "we" is not common on the GMAT, but not entirely incorrect either.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I was about to ask the same OG question, which you have shared the link for.

Posted from my mobile device