0

People in my new workplace hold that "should" is less definitive than "would," for e.g., in the sentence:

Commodity prices could be depressed in 2016 due to oversupply, which should pressure power prices.

To me, "should" here indicates a certainty (that oversupply has a relation to power prices) given some condition (that has been (naturally) left unsaid).

Which word/verb/mood of the two is more preferable if the author's intention is to play safe?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Commodity prices could be depressed in 2016 due to oversupply, which should pressure power prices.

In the above, there is some uncertainty around the power prices. It is expected to happen (it should), but one cannot be certain.

Commodity prices could be depressed in 2016 due to oversupply, which would pressure power prices.

With would, there is a certainty. Oversupply would pressure power prices. No uncertainty except for commodity prices themselves.

That said, if you want to clearly allow for uncertainty:

Commodity prices could be depressed in 2016 due to oversupply, which might pressure power prices.


It is a bit more complicated if you consider alternate definitions of the two as posted here: "Should" versus "would"

Improve this answer
2
  • Thank you Minnow! My understanding was that would also carries uncertainty. Ref: your para2, wouldn't will be better instead of would if we wanted a word to convey certainty (which we don't)? Gawrsh.
    – Shunya
    Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 3:03
  • Yes, I agree using will does evoke more certainty.
    – Minnow
    Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 18:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .