Oncology researchers have to know more about genetic predispositions

Question

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

(A) have to know
(B) had to know
(C) would have to know
(D) will have to know
(E) know

BigUD94 · Answer

Why would have to and not will have to?

souvonik2k · Answer

Here, we are talking about something that's not materialized yet - so we need to use the hypothetical subjunctive mood 'would' instead of 'will'.

iammanas · Answer

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"?

blayel · Answer

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?!)

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

blayel · Answer

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).

AjiteshArun · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Oncology researchers have to know more about genetic predispositions

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Oncology researchers have to know more about genetic predispositions

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards