Shall and Should

[rkrish]

May I know the exact meaning of the following statements?

1. The candidate shall perform not less than 100 autopsies during the training period.

2. The candidate should perform not less than 100 autopsies during the training period.

 

[5jj]

1. The candidate shall perform not less than 100 autopsies during the training period.

2. The candidate should perform not less than 100 autopsies during the training period.

#1: A formal obligation is placed on the student to perform 100 autopsies. The use of shall here is legalistic.
#2: The meaning is not so clear, and will depend on the context.
An obligation may be involved, in which case #2 has virtually the same meaning as #1, though it is less rigidly legalistic.
It may just be a recommendation.
It may be an obligation acknowledged, but with the recognition that the obligation may not be fulfilled.

 

[rkrish]

Thanks Five.. So does it mean, "Shall" implies 'Must do', while should indicates, not mandatory..?

 

[5jj]

Shall is very close in meaning to must here.
Should does not have the mandatory force of shall. It is not possible to be more precise than that with should.

 

[Slot]

***** I am not a teacher *****
​

As an aside, "no fewer than 100 autopsies" would be better than "not less than 100 autopsies."

"Less" should be reserved for uncountable things, "fewer" for countable: There was less rain today than there was yesterday, but fewer people watched the match because most went home last night.

 

[5jj]

"Less" should be reserved for uncountable things, "fewer" for countable: There was less rain today than there was yesterday, but fewer people watched the match because most went home last night.

If you are taking examinations in English, you need to remember this. However, in real life it matters less and less. Many native speakers (in BrE at least) either do not understand the difference or, if they do, don't bother to observe it.

 

[wace]

If you are taking examinations in English, you need to remember this. However, in real life it matters less and less. Many native speakers (in BrE at least) either do not understand the difference or, if they do, don't bother to observe it.

It is sobering to think that much of what (good) learners or (foreign) teachers of English take for granted is almost totally ignored by some native speakers.... I just recently found myself having to explain to an Australian friend the difference, in writing, between Mr Lewis's car and The Lewises' house. No kidding!!!

 

[Slot]

As an aside, "no fewer than 100 autopsies" would be better than "not less than 100 autopsies."

"Less" should be reserved for uncountable things, "fewer" for countable: There was less rain today than there was yesterday, but fewer people watched the match because most went home last night.

If you are taking examinations in English, you need to remember this. However, in real life it matters less and less. Many native speakers (in BrE at least) either do not understand the difference or, if they do, don't bother to observe it.

It's a slippery slope toward ain't. :evilbat:

 

[5jj]

It is sobering to think that much of what (good) learners or (foreign) teachers of English take for granted is almost totally ignored by some native speakers.

It is also sobering to think that some teachers of English, both native and non-native speakers, teach to their students forms that have not been commonly used for many years.

 

[engee30]

It is also sobering to think that some teachers of English, both native and non-native speakers, teach to their students forms that have not been commonly used for many years.

Hey, fivejedjon, you don't actually need that to following teach in your sentence - their students is in the position of indirect object there, so no need for a preposition.

 

[5jj]

Hey, fivejedjon, you don't actually need that to following teach in your sentence - their students is in the position of indirect object there, so no need for a preposition.

My use of 'to' was premeditated.

 

[engee30]

My use of 'to' was premeditated.

I can imagine it was — having read a bit in English, I've seen many instances of such use, especially when the direct object in sentences like yours is a bit lengthy and you want it in end position instead of putting it between the verb and the other object. :-D

 

[wace]

It is also sobering to think that some teachers of English, both native and non-native speakers, teach to their students forms that have not been commonly used for many years.

Not my case, but I do see your point and couldn't agree more.:up:

 

[Barb_D]

Oh, come on, it's very simple.

The finer points of language that *I* observe are important and should be taught.
The silly points of language that *I* ignore are pointless and shouldn't be bothered with.

Really, the the whole words thought exactly as I did, it would be so much easier! (For me!)
:lol:

 

[SoothingDave]

Oh, come on, it's very simple.

The finer points of language that *I* observe are important and should be taught.
The silly points of language that *I* ignore are pointless and shouldn't be bothered with.

Really, the the whole words thought exactly as I did, it would be so much easier! (For me!)
:lol:

Sartre noted that hell is other people.

 

[Barb_D]

Darn tootin'!