Stacey Koprince wrote:"Should" means something like "might" (but a bit more certain): something will likely be allowed or will happen. When a word like "should" is placed next to another verb ("should allow"), this is a way to talk about the future but not in absolutely sure terms. "This will allow" means you think there's no doubt that this will happen in future. "This should allow" means it will probably happen in future, but you're not saying it definitely will.

If people do more research, then that should allow us to understand more. That is not the same thing as saying that I personally think someone should go do that research. Those are two different concepts.

Someone has a theory that shooting yourself in the head will kill you. If someone undertakes that action, we should be able to test that theory.

Have I told you that I think we should actually conduct that experiment? I hope not.

The word "should" does not automatically mean "I think you should do this" or "I think this should be done."

The tone is somewhat positive, yes. This is not a tone question. Be wary of looking for a tone response to a non-tone question. Generally speaking, the correct answer can't contradict the tone, no - but it doesn't actually have to reflect the tone, either. (For example, you wouldn't say "to introduce a theoretical construct with which the author disagrees" because that actually contradicts what the passage says.)

siddhans wrote:

Stacey Koprince wrote:"Should" means something like "might" (but a bit more certain): something will likely be allowed or will happen. When a word like "should" is placed next to another verb ("should allow"), this is a way to talk about the future but not in absolutely sure terms. "This will allow" means you think there's no doubt that this will happen in future. "This should allow" means it will probably happen in future, but you're not saying it definitely will.

If people do more research, then that should allow us to understand more. That is not the same thing as saying that I personally think someone should go do that research. Those are two different concepts.

Someone has a theory that shooting yourself in the head will kill you. If someone undertakes that action, we should be able to test that theory.

Have I told you that I think we should actually conduct that experiment? I hope not.

The word "should" does not automatically mean "I think you should do this" or "I think this should be done."

The tone is somewhat positive, yes. This is not a tone question. Be wary of looking for a tone response to a non-tone question. Generally speaking, the correct answer can't contradict the tone, no - but it doesn't actually have to reflect the tone, either. (For example, you wouldn't say "to introduce a theoretical construct with which the author disagrees" because that actually contradicts what the passage says.)

Hi Stacey,

Why is Option A wrong? The author does outline a theory and the last line of the passage says that we should do more research too so option A is more appropriate...Also, what is the difference between concept and theory?
Also, whats the difference between A and C? I dont know what the difference between a "theory" and "theory construct" is...

A: to outline a theory and suggest options for further research

C: to introduce a theoretical construct that has not yet been sufficiently proven

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to respond. Yes, this is a tough one! (And that was on purpose - I wrote the passage. )

First, the post above doesn't show the normal formatting; we can't see where the paragraph breaks are. If you can, please edit your post to include the paragraph breaks. Those breaks are very important clues in terms of how much attention to pay to various parts of the passage.

The second paragraph begins: "Although scientists still have much to discover"

The third paragraph begins: "Lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, is a semi-synthetic psychedelic drug"

So, here's the read-through / structure:

P1
later 20c. chemical stuff in brain while sleeping. J hypoth: dreams and hallucinations have some chemical thing in common. Researchers did some stuff to test this theory.

[Notice what I'm NOT including up there? All the hard stuff. I can still get the basic idea without the annoying stuff.]

P2
Scientists don't know everything yet. Something called serotonin has certain functions; hey that word was in the first paragraph. I'm going to call this S from now on. Something else called norepinephrine does some other stuff; that N thing was in the first para too. There are two things, S and N, that are important and do certain things. "At the onset of sleep..." okay, now they're telling me how people go to sleep... skimming... there are different stages of sleep... and when people dream, the levels of S and N drop. And then something about the J hypoth again. Whatever.

P3
LSD is a... drug. People can hallucinate when they take it. LSD mimics S in some way. LSd also does something to... the LC... that does something to N. (I really don't care what, though - I'm not getting into that!) The last two sentences aren't too bad though. LSD affects N and S, which somehow means that hallucinations might just be dreaming while you're awake. Okay, that's a lot easier to understand that all of the earlier stuff. And, finally, we need more research.

Q1: Hmm. Well, what is the central premise of the J hypothesis? Well, P1 said that J thought dreams and hallucinations had something in common. Then there was a bunch of scientific stuff till the end of P3, which kind of summarized things, so I'm going to look at that part again to see WHAT J thought the two had in common.

Let's see. LSD stimulates N, so I can't fall asleep, and LSD also inhibits S, so I can dream... so, boom, I start dreaming while I'm awake. And that's hallucinating - that's the connection that J thought was going on. This question asks us to undermine this thing, so I need something that would cause this chain of events to fall apart somewhere.

A) LSD doesn't completely inhibit S. Okay. But it could still mostly inhibit it. And that's what P3 describes, so that doesn't really change anything.

B) S is one of lots of chemicals. Okay. That doesn't change anything in the above sequence of events.

C) N is important in sleep. If anything, that reinforces the passage, which already says that N is important in sleep.

D) Other drugs also cause hallucinations. Those drugs do NOT inhibit S. Wait. They don't inhibit S, but they still cause hallucinations? Okay, so they don't support J's idea.

E) All stages of sleep are crucial to dreaming. Doesn't change anything in the above sequence of events.

D.

Stacey Koprince wrote:Right - in this case, the author isn't trying to say he thinks something should happen. That's only one way to use should.

I think you should study more. I'm advocating something.
It should rain tomorrow. I'm making a prediction, or I'm repeating something I heard the meteorologist predict. That doesn't mean I want it to rain tomorrow.