incognittum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
If he is such a good doctor,
he would have diagnosed the illness.
he should have diagnosed the illness.
Diagnosis - to distinguish or identify (example: a disease) by diagnosis, or to analyze the nature or cause of.
First sentence:
If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.
(2) Or, that he did know about the illness, but did not analyze it further to draw a complete conclusion about it.
For the second sentence:
If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. The implication here can be that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.
(2)Also, a possibility that he did not find out about the illness exists, and as the sentence may state he was supposed to.
Both parts of each sentence seem to work for each conditional. Although, I think the first part of each sentence fits the meaning of these conditionals somewhat better then the second.
1. If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.
2. If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. Based on the implication that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.
Now, does this make any sense :?:
he would have diagnosed the illness.
he should have diagnosed the illness.
Diagnosis - to distinguish or identify (example: a disease) by diagnosis, or to analyze the nature or cause of.
First sentence:
If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.
(2) Or, that he did know about the illness, but did not analyze it further to draw a complete conclusion about it.
For the second sentence:
If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. The implication here can be that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.
(2)Also, a possibility that he did not find out about the illness exists, and as the sentence may state he was supposed to.
Both parts of each sentence seem to work for each conditional. Although, I think the first part of each sentence fits the meaning of these conditionals somewhat better then the second.
1. If he is such a good doctor, he would have diagnosed the illness. (1) We can infer from this that he did some kind of diagnosis on the patient, but did not find out about the illness.
2. If he is such a good doctor, he should have diagnosed the illness. (1) What can be understood here is that he knew about the illness, but did not make a thorough analysis of it, therefore limiting what can be concluded from the diagnosis. Based on the implication that all good doctors should diagnose the illness.
Now, does this make any sense :?:
Last edited: