Intended meaning??? MANHATTAN SC GUIDE

[rishijhawar]

My question is related to understand ing the INTENDED MEANING of a sentence. Reason being, keeping aside the numerous grammar rules GMAT test, the correct answer hinges on expressing author's intended meaning, something I find difficult to decipher in certain instances. Below is an example in this context:

#1: The court ruled that the plaintiff MUST pay full damages.
#2: The court ruled that the plaintiff SHOULD pay full damages.

Per MANHATTAN SC Guide (latest edition# pg 15), #2 is wrong because "The word should means "moral obligation''-something that a court cannot impose (I thought a court can certainly impose.....say additional taxes or restricting loud noise/late night parties beyond XX hours etc). On the other hand, the use of must in the first sentence indicates a legally binding obligation imposed upon the plaintiff. Thus, you should go with must, whether the original sentence used must or not."

In the actual test, I would have selected #2 given my understanding that a Court of law can impose something given its status to pass laws etc. I don't rule out #1 completely, but would go for #2.

Can someone please help me here? Appreciate expert advice as well.

BTW, those who haven't seen, find the link which has David's great explanation on INTENDED MEANING https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-truth-ab ... 76648.html

[GmatKiss]

Good question, would like to hear from experts!!

[rishijhawar]

Hi Guys, appreciate your inputs here. Thanks

My question is related to understand ing the INTENDED MEANING of a sentence. Reason being, keeping aside the numerous grammar rules GMAT test, the correct answer hinges on expressing author's intended meaning, something I find difficult to decipher in certain instances. Below is an example in this context:

#1: The court ruled that the plaintiff MUST pay full damages.
#2: The court ruled that the plaintiff SHOULD pay full damages.

Per MANHATTAN SC Guide (latest edition# pg 15), #2 is wrong because "The word should means "moral obligation''-something that a court cannot impose (I thought a court can certainly impose.....say additional taxes or restricting loud noise/late night parties beyond XX hours etc). On the other hand, the use of must in the first sentence indicates a legally binding obligation imposed upon the plaintiff. Thus, you should go with must, whether the original sentence used must or not."

In the actual test, I would have selected #2 given my understanding that a Court of law can impose something given its status to pass laws etc. I don't rule out #1 completely, but would go for #2.

Can someone please help me here? Appreciate expert advice as well.

BTW, those who haven't seen, find the link which has David's great explanation on INTENDED MEANING https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-truth-ab ... 76648.html

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

"Should" is always more of a value judgment than a definite. Since we're dealing with the ruling of a court, which is legally binding, MUST (which is definite) is the proper choice.

[rishijhawar]

Hi Bill, thanks for your reply.

But I am not very clear on the distinction between value judgement and definite judgement. Would be great if you can quote some relevant examples. I believe googling will throw a lot of examples, but just want to stick to authentic source and site such as BTG. Tks