Which would be your instantaneous reading of the exchange below?
A: Newcastle Brown is a jolly good beer.
B: Is it?
A: Well it ought to be at that price.
"Well it ought to be at that price" means, "the brewers have an option to make the beer good because it is so expensive" or "It costs a lot, therefore it's good"? Or is it ambiguous for you?
Top answer
"It costs a lot, therefore it's good" unambiguously to me.
— Marius Hancu
"It costs a lot, therefore it's good" unambiguously to me.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Based on the premiss, right or wrong, that the consumer gets a better product if he pays more for it, It ought to be at that price instantaneously reads for me as [It is expected / One expects it / I would expect it] to be very good because it is expensive. (One would be rather indignant if this expected relationship were not true.) To me, the ought t
I don't think the two interpretations catch the distinction effectively.
1. The brewers have an option to make the beer good because it is so expensive = 2. Because the beer is so expensive, the brewers have an option to make it good = 3. The beer is expensive, therefore the brewers have an option to make it good = 4. The beer costs a lot, therefore the brewers have an optio
Gosh, Mr. P. I don't get Dialog 1 at all. To me, the subject it refers to the beer, so it would be the beer that had an obligation if you want to get an obligation interpretation in there. Wouldn't it? I can't get my brain to turn it around and put an obligation on the brewer, who isn't even mentioned in the whole dialog.