Canadian scientists have calculated that
one human being should be struck every nine years by a meteorite, while each year 16 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 disagree with the OA. The OA is (D), and the explanation is: "What this sentence says is not what it logically intends. The verb
should implies obligation; in this sentence, it indicates that one human being
ought to be struck every nine years, as though that person somehow deserved it. The scientists clearly mean that a human being
will be struck by a meteorite roughly every nine years." I understand this logic, but completely disagree with it. First of all,
"should" does not necessarily imply obligation. It can also refer to something that is
expected but not definite - "If the scientists are correct, this
should happen." That's in the dictionary. Secondly, by changing it to "WILL be struck," you are changing the meaning of the sentence to state that the scientists know, without a doubt, that someone will be struck by a meteorite every nine years. However, the second part of the sentence, "while each year 16 buildings
can be expected to sustain damage from such objects," makes it clear that the scientists do not KNOW that these are definite things, but rather that they are EXPECTED things. "Should" is the correct word to use. You could replace it with some other things, like "will probably" or "most likely will", but not just "will". That changes the inherent meaning to something more definite than actually intended.
Thoughts?