paradox

Question

( In case you need the context, here is first sentence ) You are right that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic.

( second sentence ) But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professinal standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claim.

Question,

If there is no licensing to set professional standard, how you " thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claim "?

Don't think this setence ( first part and second part ) contradict one another ?

Thanks

Marius Hancu · Accepted Answer

No, there's no contradiction there:

a licensing board (should it exist) would set professionals standards, and these standards would prevent/deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims

unfortunately, there isn't such a board

BW2/3 · Answer

Hi Marius Hancu,

Do below sentences are similar in meaning ?

But this exists only because there is licensing board to set professinal standards ( let's take away the negative things ( the problem and no )

a licensing board (should it exist) would set professionals standards

Thank you very much !

Marius Hancu · Answer

Sorry, your English isn't clear, I'm not sure what you mean.

Nona the brit · Answer

You can't take away the negative because if there were a board, then the problem wouldn't exist and you wouldn't need to write about it, unless you completely re-phrase it.

But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professinal standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claim.

I can see how you are misinterpreting the original. It is the 'thus' that is confusing you. This sentence does not mean that there is no board and therefore irresponsible analysts are detered from making exaggerated claims.

Take out the 'thus' and you will see the meaning more clearly.

There is no licensing board to set professional standards and deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.

The thus is there to point out that the analysts can make these claims BECAUSE there is no licensing board.

Anonymous · Answer

If below sentence change to conditional, does it similar to your sentence " a licensing board (should it exist) would set professionals standards " ?

But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professinal standards. Changing To conditonal,

If this problem does not exist, there must be alicensing board to set porfessinal standards.

Thanks

Marius Hancu · Answer

>If below sentence change to conditional, does it similar

If below sentence changes to conditional, is it similar

Marius Hancu · Answer

Anonymous If this problem does not exist, there must be a licensing board to set professinal standards.

This isn't good English.

Forget about the conditional, the point here is that:

In order to eliminate such problems, there should be a licensing board [in order] to set professional standards.

Nona the brit · Answer

You can't always reverse things.

This problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professinal standards does not mean the same thing as If this problem does not exist, there must be alicensing board to set porfessinal standards.

The problem exists because A does not exist.

A now exists, but the problem could still happen for another reason.

You can't assume that if there is no problem, there MUST be a licensing board setting professional standards. If there is no problem, it could be that all the analysts are well trained, qualified and ethical anyway so do not need a licensing board to control them. You can't just reverse a statement in this way and expect it to work in every case. You still need to think about the meaning of what you are saying.

What you are trying to do is the equivalent of saying:

All goats are red. If it is red, it must be a goat. (no, lots of things are red)

There are no cakes on the table to feed the children. If the children are fed, there must have been cakes on the table. (no, they might have been fed on sandwiches, curry, bananas, all sorts of things)

There is a problem caused by lack of X. If the problem goes away it must be because X is now there. (no, there could have been a different solution).

BW2/3 · Answer

It makes sense. I agree

paradox

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions