What is the answer to this question?

Your textbook is making a didactic point out of a distinction that most native speakers don't acknowledge. u/redentification has got it right.

The answer is "mustn't", but it doesn't sit right with me... I mean, I chose "can't" because you literally cannot smoke in a hospital right? And 'mustn't" is used in moral obligations... right?

Option "d", because "must" mean an obligation to be accomplished.

I think the correct answer is b

If I had to choose, “You can’t smoke here” sounds the most natural, but honestly I don’t see anything wrong with any of the given answers.

Technically, it ought to be "mustn't" because some person is reprimanding you for attempting to smoke on hospital grounds: "This is a hospital...". "Must", in theory, relates to direct orders from someone or general rules, laws, regulations. Naturally, even native speakers don't follow this by the letter so it's merely a textbook thing. Generally, all 4 are fine grammatically, but "must" is the best bet because 1. it's a hospital rule 2. someone is telling you (direct order from a person) not to smoke because "this is a hospital...".

D, because the speaker is issuing a command A is a suggestion B is arguable C implies you should smoke elsewhere but that's not the point But honestly any native speaker would use any one they want any time they want.

d, mustn't However, this question is too ambiguous to be on a test as more answers are technically correct.

Mustn’t. In the US we SAY “can’t” which is untrue, unless they have no hands and no helper. Mustn’t or may not. Are not allowed to

All four answers are perfectly grammatical. "You shouldn't smoke here" is a suggestion. It does not expressly say that smoking is illegal, but it's close enough. If someone says this to me, I'm putting out my cigarette. It's fine. "You can't smoke here" is the most common way to say it. Saying you can't do something is often shorthand for saying you can't *legally* do it. Which is exactly what they mean to say. It's technically inaccurate because *can* refers to possibility, not legality. But that's the way we really use the language on the street, in real life. This is the best, most coherent option for spoken English. You wouldn't put this in writing, but it's exactly what we would say out loud. "You do not smoke here" is the only truly wrong answer. It's still grammatical but this form is declaring a fact, not making a demand. The imperative would be "Do not smoke here." "You mustn't smoke here" is not a normal way to say this in American English, but it's perfectly correct and I believe it's a fairly common form in British English.

The most natural sounding is b however the reason the answer is d is mustn’t means you aren’t allowed to smoke inside the hospital, “can’t “ means you physically cannot smoke (which is incorrect ,you can). Shouldn’t means it is morally wrong to do so however it isn’t an order more so a suggestion. C doesn’t make total sense as “you do not smoke here “ is incorrect. It should be “do not smoke here ”. In conclusion the most natural sounding is b but d is grammatically correct because it means you aren’t allowed to smoke as opposed to you not physically being able to.

All of these work grammatically and can be perceived as a warning/reminder to not smoke in a hospital. I think u/redentification is right, though. The question is probably trying to determine an understanding of the difference between between an obligation to do something, a recommendation to do something, an ability to do something, and a statement that something does not happen, in which case a warning would be an obligation and use must, although no American English speaker and most British/Australian English speakers would never acknowledge this difference in regular conversation, and if they wanted to clearly make a warning they would use a conditional statement (if you smoke here, I will call the police), an imperative statement (Do not smoke here), or just an indicative statement using can or do (You can’t smoke here).

I think they’d be most likely to say “can’t.” (I’m American.) “Shouldn’t” isn’t forceful enough and sounds like a suggestion. “Do not” is rude. “Mustn’t” sounds quaint. “May not” would also work, but “You can’t” is used both to mean “It is impossible for you to” and “You do not have permission to,” and in this context she clearly is not telling you that the sprinklers will come on and put your cigarette out.

Hi. To my way of thinking, saying whether you can/cannot do something isn't just a statement about your physical ability to do the thing, but can also be interpreted as a comment on whether you are allowed to do it or not. If somebody asks you the question, "can I punch you on the nose?", you're unlikely to reply, "yes", on the basis that they are physically capable of doing so. Rather, you'd say, "no", because you'd want to refuse them permission to do so. "Mustn't", works fine in the sentence, but I would say that, "This is a hospital, you can't smoke here", is a legitimate answer since smoking is not permitted.

At a hospital? The answer is definitely can't. There would be signs posted stating that at every entrance

American English. "Mustn't" is the grammatically correct version, but would not be used. We don't tend to use "mustn't" in speech or writing. May be more common in other flavors of English. In the US, you would either have someone tell you "You can't smoke here." (meaning you are not allowed). Or you would see signs saying "No Smoking" (possibly with more info like "No Smoking Allowed on Hospital Premises" or "No Smoking in the Pathology Lab" or such).

All of them. Depending on formality and emphasis. I'd most likely say can't, which is probably going to be marked wrong, but I bet is what most native English speaking people would say. You can't smoke here... (ok, physically you can, but not without penalty or things exploding, which we all know.) "Mustn't" feels old fashioned, and possibly rudely officious, but is technically correct. "Shouldn't" isn't emphatic enough, but might be said to be polite. "Do not" is like advice on the custom or rules, here. Like shouldn't, it is more informative than prescriptive but could be used to be polite.

"(d) mustn't" is the best answer, since (a) "shouldn't" implies more of a moral choice than rule following, (b) "can't" implies no one has a lighter or the atmosphere has no O2 present, and (c) would be a correct emphatic form, but you'd expect an exclamation point to go with it.

For sure the correct answer is D... however it highlights how stupid these questions are...because in everyday language, people very often would say "You can't smoke here" and it is absolutely understood as "You mustn't smoke here."... It's not very natural and common for people to use must in the negative form, although it is correct. I don't like the question because it causes a rift between what is 'technically correct' and what is 'functionally correct'. Just my thought. Would love to hear from you guys, too.

Very difficult... for me..

Great!

Great

Technically can't would imply that smoking is impossible in the hospital, which is clearly isn't. However it's pretty common to use cant when giving out rules, as it's obvious it's a rule and not a general statement. Mustn't can be used to forbid someone from doing something but it sounds a bit aggressive. Like you might say "you mustn't do that" to someone to get them to stop doing something.

What’s the correct answer? You can’t smoke here?

D

I've always had trouble with these kinds of questions, not because I don't understand the grammatical rules or implications of the words, but because I can imagine a context where the other answers could be correct. I get the distinction between "can't" and "mustn't" (although I agree that 99% of the time, an actual real life person would say "can't"). But I can imagine a nurse explaining to me that I SHOULDN'T smoke in the hospital - imagine me being a grumpy patient who only wants to get his nicotine fix. I know it's against the rules and I don't care. The nurse then tries to explain to me why those rules exist - in which case, "shouldn't" would be correct, right? I'm not a native speaker so please correct me if I'm wrong.

In American English, at least, I'd say "can't" sounds most natural. We often don't distinguish between saying you can or can't do something and you are allowed to or not allowed to do something. There's even a (kind of annoying) joke that exploits this ambiguity: Someone says, "Can I go to the bathroom?" You say, "I don't know. /Can/ you go to the bathroom?" I suppose the logic behind this usage of can and can't boils down to "can or can't I do it without social repercussions?" not "can or can't I physically do it?"

Technically, it's mustn't, but most people would say can't because it's illegal.

Mustn't is technically the correct answer, but it is archaic; nobody really uses it in the US, at least. Common usage would be "can't"

Since all of these are grammatically correct, I can try to break down the actual meanings behind each answer choice. Keep in mind, the question is asking the complete the *warning* given by *hospital staff*. A) would not be a warning given by hospital staff, but rather a passerby or the like. The “should not” implies the person has no real authority, and is making the claim purely based on moral grounds. B) is the most effective (and correct) warning that a hospital staff member could make. There is no moral subjectivity here, and you can somewhat ignore everyone saying “well actually it’s technically possible.” Think about it this way: the entire law is based on what you can and can’t do. The law isn’t that you shouldn’t or mustn’t murder, but that you CAN’T murder. Obviously it is technically possible to murder someone… but it is simply not allowed to do so. C) also does not have moral subjectivity, but it most certainly sounds more like a parent lecturing their child (you do not hit a stranger, you do not pick your nose in public, etc). However, this would be less of a warning and more of a command. D) could be the second-most correct answer, as it is more of an imperative than a moral suggestion (like A is). However, the word “must” in general is still used as an urgent suggestion (you must turn left, you must finish by 9). That’s why it *could* work as a warning, but would not be a better answer than B. That all being said, I’m not really sure myself which is the correct option. The most normal way to say this would be B, but really, as the others have noted, any of the answers could work well here.

The answer is D) mustn't The reason why is that although we, as English speakers, would use "can't," because it sounds the most natural, what that would mean in the context of the sentence is that smoking is physically impossible to do in the hospital. "Mustn't," or "must not," is a command forbidding the act of smoking, because smoking in the hospital is still possible to do regardless if it is forbidden or not.

The idea that **can** is only for *capability* is somewhat outdated. Most dictionaries do give one definition of **can** as *having permission to do something*. With this in mind, **mustn't** means forbidden, **can't** means not permitted. I would accept either answer.

Ignoring the options, a better statement would be something like, “You are not allowed to smoke here” or “Smoking is not allowed here” or “It’s against the rules to smoke here”, etc. “Can’t” insinuates that it’s not physically possible, which is false. “Mustn’t” probably makes the most sense but is not a natural sounding choice, at least in US English.

Mustn't is a bit of an outdated term. Most native (American) English speakers would use "can't".

B and D

Shouldn't" is grammatically correct, but contextually incorrect. Can't is both grammatically correct, and contextually correct. This is because "shouldn't" is generally interpreted as an advisement. Can't is widely interpreted as not able/allowed. She sees him light a cigarrette and says, "You can't smoke here! This is a hospital!" She sees him pick his nose in public and says, "You shouldn't do that! Someone might see you."

it's mustn't but it's another example of testing gone wild because it literally does not matter if I tell a person they can't smoke here, they know what it means, they are not allowed to, they must not sure they **can**, they'll get a couple of drags in before security throws them out

D might be correct, technically. But it sounds horrible, as a native speaker. The most natural option for native speakers is B, even though it technically means that it is impossible to smoke there. A is fine too. C is probably OK; using separate instead of contracted words would mostly convey emphasis.

Does anyone actually say “mustn’t” in real life? And in my opinion the most likely phrasing would be, “There’s no smoking here,” or, “Smoking isn’t allowed.”

Can’t. Shouldn’t makes it sound like there is an option.

The average native speaker, say a nurse or security guard, if you tried lighting up in the lobby of a U.S. hospital, would probably just use "can't." "Mustn't" is probably the technically correct answer they're looking for. "Shouldn't" is insufficiently imperative. "do not" doesn't really make sense.

I believe it will be the 4 option. Must not

“Mustn’t” sounds like 70 year old British English. Nobody says that.

The test clearly wants "mustn't" vecause it's like the most forbidding modal verb here. But the test is shit. All the answers are correct. I would use "can't" in daily speech.

I feel like all of these are viable options. Most American English speakers won’t say mustn’t but it’s the most stick-up-your-butt grammatical correct option out of the four. It just sounds… archaic? Like at that point just speak Shakespearean English. Even C) do not is a viable option, but only if you’re hard stressing the *do not* and you’re mad because they’re probably smoking and it’s really important to you that under no circumstances will it ever happen again. “Can’t” is the most likely word for an American to use in my opinion, and shouldn’t is an option but it’s not a great option. You’d say that if you wanted to lessen the severity though.

I should not but i should. I cannot but i can. I do not but i do. I must not but i must. You can smoke but it's not allow. Should you smoke? Maybe. Do you smoke in a hospital? I don't. Is it a must to smoke? I think not. I would say mustn't is the answer.

Any are grammatically correct, depending on meaning. Obviously the meaning in context is that you are telling the person that there is a rule against smoking, but then "can't", "mustn't" and "shouldn't" are still all correct. They probably intend for "can't" to be incorrect on the basis of "can for ability, may for permission". That doesn't reflect actual use, but tests like this are usually about formal proscriptive grammar so we can fairly eliminate that. They probably intend "shouldn't", but the difference between that and "mustn't" is mostly a matter of force and degree so it's a rough one...

All of them are valid sentences,but all have different meanings. The only one that works are a "warning from hospital staff" is "mustn't"

I don't think native speakers typically use "mustn't" to mean that something is actually prohibited. Usually it means something is just incorrect or undesirable. "Oh you mustn't say such things!", "You mustn't get the wrong idea..." It's also used to express a conclusion one has drawn. "You mustn't have heard the news..." Even though "mustn't" seems to make more sense for a prohibition than "can't", I think you're *much* more likely to hear a native speaker say "you can't smoke here."

Mustn’t feels like the best answer to me. Shouldn’t feels like a suggestion, Can’t is technically not true since it’s physically possible (but this is normally how people speak and would probably be the most common way this sentence would actually be said) Do not is actually a valid answer grammatically but feels so weird I’m not sure what context would make it suitable. Must not conveys that the action is forbidden, so it isn’t just as suggestion like “shouldn’t”, and it isn’t implying that it’s physically impossible like “can’t”.

I only see an incorrect answer in C

The correct answer is “mustn’t”. As in you must not smoke here. Mustn’t is a command. It’s similar to forbidden. Can’t is more of a statement of the impossible. “You mustn’t smoke here”, “You can’t teach a dog to bark”.

B but all are acceptable, I think

Grammatically correct? All of them.  Factually correct: a and d. B is false as you *can* smoke there, you will just be told off / judged / fined / kicked out if you do so. But you cannot smoke underwater, for example. C depends. If it's you as in the collective, which is a valid interpretation, then it's true, as in general people do not smoke in the hospital. If it's you as in the person being talked to, then we don't know what you do or don't do. The right answer: d. "Mustn't" is stronger than "shouldn't". Since there is an obligation not to - on pain of actual consequences as a result of announced rules - the threshold of "mustn't" is reached.

“Mustn’t” to my American ears sounds extremely British. In the U.S. we would always say “can’t,” but we wouldn’t write it that way in any formal setting. There may have been a time when “shouldn’t” would have worked, but we don’t smoke in hospitals anymore!

According to how I was taught, these modal verbs have "levels of severity" to them. Must > will > can > should > may. Something like that. So according to that, the answer should be "mustn't", though in a regular conversation we would hardly ever distinguish them this way.

All of them are correct, although C is awkward. It probably wants B, but this question should be taken out and shot. No native speaker would care.

The technical answer is d: mustn’t. However, most people wouldn’t even say that. It’s very formal and odd, sort of outdated. Both A and B could be heard or seen and nobody would question it.

Found the answer sheet of that exact question, it is D (mustn’t), I would like to share it but I don’t know if I can post links here

The only one that's incorrect is c) do not.

i was today years old when i found out its spelled MUSTN'T and not MUSN'T (even tho i dont think i've ever typed/written that word in my life)

This reminds me of the “Can I go to the toilet?” “I don’t know, can you?”

can't means you physically can not do it, so that's crossed out, shouldn't says there is choice with no consequence, are not smoke here is grammatically incorrect, mustn't means that you must not as in a enforced rule

A and D could both be considered correct here. I think most hospital staff would say "You shouldn't smoke here" and mean "You mustn't smoke here" by it. Like, basically they would use "You shouldn't smoke here" because it sounds more polite, but if you tried to smoke, they would probably kick you out. "You can't smoke here" would technically be wrong - you absolutely can, it's just not a good thing to do. However, it's not entirely impossible to still be used in this context. "You do not smoke here" would be entirely wrong, that's a sentence you'd only really get from someone who speaks in broken English.

Really annoying to see these questions for non-native speakers. As a native speaker, it's a "so what", as they are all 100% understood and could be valid. I would rather explain the difference "must not" and "mustn't" here, than "can't" vs "mustn't". (For explanation, the shortened form is more casual, where the two-word form is more formal and more for emphasis.) This is a hospital. You MUST NOT smoke here. This is a hospital. You WILL NOT smoke here. This is a hospital. You SHALL NOT smoke here. ... all good.

All 4 make grammatical sense. I would assume B though.

The answer is mustn't since you physically can smoke there but moral and legal obligations keep you from smoking there. At least that's my understanding of it