Why cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is unclear, but Dr. Bowe

any verbal expert please explain why we rejected c.

Ayush
Total meaning change you know. The issue is about the reason for the inhibition and not about how the inhibition occurs.

daagh A is clearly the answer here, but could you help with what's wrong with D?

Kriti
A asks a question as to why something is happening whereas D confirms that something is happening. We can see the altered intent

Am really confused now.
As per discussion on https://gmatclub.com/forum/canadian-sci ... 01939.html, it is said Should is reserved for recommendations and should not be used to express probability.
how can the OA be A then?

Why cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is unclear, but Dr. Bowen, who reports this effect in her study, speculates that the food might interfere with the acid that decays teeth or with the bacterium that produces the acid.

The passage is concerned with the reason why cheddar cheese 'should' inhibit tooth decay; the emphasis on 'reason' can be best understood by examining what follows the underlined portion of this passage - ,but Dr. Bowen,......,speculates that the food might interfere.... decays teeth....


A. Why cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is unclear - Puts emphasis on the obscurity of the 'reason' why cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay. This is perfectly in line with the intention of the passage. Hence, (A) is the right answer choice.

B. Cheddar cheese and how it inhibits tooth decay is not clear - (B) implies that 'Cheddar cheese' is unclear and 'how cheddar cheese inhibits tooth decay' is unclear. The intention of the passage was not to imply that 'cheddar cheese' is unclear, an implication that does not make any sense whatsoever. Hence, eliminate (B)

C. How cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is not clear - this emphasizes on the inhibition 'process' rather than on the reason 'why'. hence, eliminate (C)

D. That cheddar cheese inhibits tooth decay and how is unclear -(D) implies that two things are unclear:

(i) whether 'cheddar cheese' inhibits tooth decay
and
(ii) 'how' cheddar cheese inhibits tooth decay.

the passage does not focus on any of these two implications. hence, eliminate (D)

E. Why there is an inhibition of tooth decay by cheddar cheese is unclear - (E) implies that it is tooth decay that causes 'cheddar cheese'. This obviously does not make sense. Hence, eliminate (E).

daagh Sir,

In option A how the use of "should" is justified?
Because of "should" I went with Option D which is grammatically correct but not maintaining exact meaning.

Please explain.

Thanks in advance
Rishit

Rishit
That is a style of writing. Don't we say why should people drink when they know it is harmful? what is wrong with this?

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:


Rhetorical Construction; Diction

The sentence considers some possible mechanisms by which cheddar cheese might inhibit tooth decay. The underlined portion of the given sentence may express a certain skepticism, signaled by the use of why … should, as to whether cheddar cheese does, in fact, inhibit tooth decay, and the rest of the sentence attributes to Dr. Bowen a speculation as to how this might occur. The expression why … decay is a noun clause and the subject of the verb is.

A Correct. As explained above, this version of the sentence is clear and grammatically in order.
B This answer choice is incoherent. Because it is nonsensical to say that cheddar cheese is not clear, cheddar cheese cannot be taken as the subject of the verb is; the phrase cheddar cheese and is therefore best viewed as a fragment that does not fit grammatically in the context.
C This version appears intended to indicate that no clear mechanism by which cheddar cheese inhibits, or could inhibit, tooth decay has been described. Because the concern about a mechanism would presuppose that cheddar cheese does, or could, inhibit tooth decay, the use of should to indicate doubt as to whether this is so does not fit well in context.
D The intended thought in this answer choice may be something like the following: it is unclear that cheddar cheese inhibits tooth decay, and how [it would do so]. But this is not correctly expressed. The verb is seems to have two subjects, the that-clause and the implicit how-clause, so the verb form should be the plural are.
E This answer choice is unnecessarily awkward and wordy, with the use of there is and the unnecessary use of the noun inhibition instead of a form of the verb inhibit.

The correct answer is A.

I'm not sure about this

"should" implies an opinion or recommendation from someone

Can someone explain the usage of "Should" ? GMATNinja

After take a look among the answer choices, I hope everybody get the final decision betwen A and C.

Why A and not C?

C) How cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is not clear -> "HOW" tell us that we are 100% sure that cheese cheedar does inhibit tooth decay (we just want to know how is the process), but if we add the word "should", we are giving a space to doubt about the capacity of cheedar cheese to inhibit tooth decay, so use "How" and "Should" in the same clause is a contradiction. This contradiction doesn't occur in answer choice A.

We can also use "should" to express what is probable or expected. For example:

• "Drinking a glass of whiskey should help alleviate the pain from your toothache." (Or the pain from your GMAT exam. Just sayin'.)
• "One hour should be enough time to get to the show."
• "The package should arrive in 3-5 business days."

In this case, cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay. Will it always inhibit tooth decay? No. But generally speaking we expect cheddar cheese to inhibit tooth decay.

Nachos, anyone?

VeritasKarishma

Even after reading the expert posts, I'm not very clear with why C or D is not correct

As per the sentence when we say Dr. has reported this effect in her study and speculates on how it happens, shouldn't C give a better intro by saying how this happens is not clear but Dr. speculates 2 possibilities

Pls help!

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja can you please post a detailed solution to this problem. Still confused between the usage of how and why?

My solution-
A. Why cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is unclear
Why A should work to cure disease B is unclear - Does A work? Unclear
How A should work to cure disease B - there is an implied understanding that A does work. How it works is unknown.
But here the doc is reporting this effect in her study and speculating on why it happens. Nothing is established.
Hence (A) is correct.
B. Cheddar cheese and how it inhibits tooth decay is not clear
Cheddar cheese is not clear->wrong meaning
C. How cheddar cheese should inhibit tooth decay is not clear
D. That cheddar cheese inhibits tooth decay and how is unclear
that and how acts as a subj. plural verb is needed ->wrong
E. Why there is an inhibition of tooth decay by cheddar cheese is unclear
Passive and wordy

Just to add another point, don't think anyone in the forum mentioned this so far.
The nonunderlined part of the sentence indicates how cheese may prevent tooth decay, quoted from the original sentence "...speculates that the food might interfere with the acid that decays teeth or with the bacterium that produces the acid".
Therefore, the underline portion stating that the how is unclear makes no sense.

Again, I don't think I can see through this in the 2 mins in a real GMAT exam, don't recommend stressing too much on these kind of questions if you are not aiming at 750 and above.

Thank you to experts for clarifying the confusion between A and C, and usage of why and how.