0
Anonymous Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
zero conditional vs second conditional
I was given the task to rephrase the following sentences to make a conditional sentence but keep the meaning:
-You aren't very smart, so you won't become a doctor.
I rephrased it to form zero conditional like this:
-If you aren't very smart, you can't be a doctor.
But there is also this option:
-If you were smart, you would be a doctor.
I am wondering which one of these is correct.. Also, are there any more ways to form a conditional sentence besides these two.
-You aren't very smart, so you won't become a doctor.
I rephrased it to form zero conditional like this:
-If you aren't very smart, you can't be a doctor.
But there is also this option:
-If you were smart, you would be a doctor.
I am wondering which one of these is correct.. Also, are there any more ways to form a conditional sentence besides these two.
Top answer
If you were smart, you would become a doctor. The second is the correct equivalent: the fact is that she is not smart, and your zero-conditional is inappropriately contrary to that fact. Offhand, I see no other viable option.
- If you were smart, you would become a doctor.
- The second is the correct equivalent: the fact is that she is not smart, and your zero-conditional is inappropriately contrary to that fact.
- Offhand, I see no other viable option.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
If you were smart, you would become a doctor.
The second is the correct equivalent: the fact is that she is not smart, and your zero-conditional is inappropriately contrary to that fact.
Offhand, I see no other viable option.
The second is the correct equivalent: the fact is that she is not smart, and your zero-conditional is inappropriately contrary to that fact.
Offhand, I see no other viable option.
0
Related Questions