Oncology researchers have to know more about genetic predispositions

arun@crackverbal

A doubt here - I understand that it is not materialized yet but why can we not say with future certainty that "the researchers will have to know XYZ to understand ABC"?

Sometimes I see questions like this and I feel sad about how arbitrary the explanations (and the "official" answers) are.

The original answer:

"Oncology researchers have to know more about genetic predispositions to understand the causative agents of cancer better and explore ways to combat these."

How do you even know if it is a hypothetical situation or not?

NO. You never know. Just by looking at the original sentence, what we understand is that there is a suggestion, a piece of advice, or even a fact in that:

"if oncology researchers want to understand the causative agents of cancer better
and
want to explore ways to combat these (i.e. the causative agents of cancer),
then they have to know more about genetic predispositions".

That's all. Nothing is hypothetical (and why is it so?!)

[A] is fine by itself. Any argument for the official answer seems subjective and ill-founded to me.

I won't comment on "would have to know" and "will have to know" (your main question).

I just want to share my opinion about "have to know" and "will have to know".

Normally, we say:
a) You know that I like you.
b) You will know the truth when time comes.

However, when we use "have to" to express an objective obligation (vs. "must" as the subjective obligation), "will have to know" seems a little bit off to me.

For example, if something is objective in the sense that knowing it is good, then the context lends itself to a fact, and the objectivity of "have to" gives it the simple present tense (a fact, a rule, a common way of acting,...)

Ex: To become a good person, you have to know when to stop.
- Weird: To become a good person, you will have to know when to stop.
- Reason: it is a fact which is based on the objectivity in "have to" (i.e. not in my opinion but based on others, or just a rule in life), so you don't use future tense to reflect that fact.

This is my opinion. But the objectivity sense of modal verb "have to" is right

Note that I am discussing the grammar itself, and not the official answer (which I think is ridiculous).

This question appears to be based on this official question.

I don't agree with parts of the official explanation for that question, but the main point is that the official question includes other things on which we can take a call.

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.