|
Rosa_Rose
|
What īs the correct answer?
|
|
HI all,..please help me with this:
It īs impossible. They......... already. How did they do it?
a) mustn īt have finished
b) can īt have finished
c) might have finished
d) should have finished
and is it right to use"already "in a negative sentence?
Thanks in advance ;) |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
|
[email protected]
|
īb � is correct.
And sometimes, as in your example, you can use īalready � in a negative sentence.
Alex
|
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
MoodyMoody
|
|
I īd also include shouldn īt have finished as a correct sentence, although can īt have finished expresses surprise and disbelief much more strongly. Might have finished implies that the students could be finished, not an impossibility. |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
Bahrain
|
|
i think they shouldn īt have finish |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
[email protected]
|
|
īshouldn īt have finished � is also possible. But it isn īt one of the original answers!
|
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
monicap_87
|
|
the only thing is... �shouldn īt have finished � is not among the options... So, I īd also say īB � is the right answer...
|
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
I agree that "can īt have finished" is the correct answer among the choices, and that "shouldn īt have finished" would also be correct, but it isn īt one of the choices. Another possibility is "couldn īt have finished".
Also, "already" is definitely correct here, since it means "sooner than expected", which is what happened in this situation.
Bruce |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
Rosa_Rose
|
|
unluckily i chose "should have finished" as i thought
a) "can īt have +pp" form is incorrect ...i have never seen such a form before!
b) "already" is for the affirmative forms only in the present perfect !
i was really confused! |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
|
|
i8mnmcandy4u
|
|
I īd say the answer be B I īve that form and After can īt u use bare infinitive I remember such an example from my descriptive grammar class :) |
15 Dec 2010
|
|
|
christybridgeman
|
|
It is can īt have because of the word impossible. Should have in a different context could have also worked. |
16 Dec 2010
|
|
