Hi

Whilst playing ‘The smartest pupil’ the pupils are practising guided independent learning. The teacher is there in the classroom should there be a problem, but the point is that the pupils be able to do the entire quiz independently. The pupils are given a general explanation of how to play the game, then they can get started. They receive cards explaining how each separate round is played, the pupils have to keep track of their own scores and who’s turn it is.

to be or not to be?

The more I think about it the more I start doubting between "are" and "be".

This post was edited by Lod_kenneth on Dec 21 2014 03:56am

The teacher is there in the classroom should there be a problem, but the point is that the pupils should be able to do the entire quiz independently.

Or but the point is that the pupils complete the quiz independently.

Just add should before be and it sounds right because you cannot be positive all students can complete the task but you expect they should be able to

The bold part sounds odd but is not grammatically incorrect

Thank you very much!

The teacher is present should there be a problem


The part you have is there in the classroom just gets me it's like you are specifying their location with there and furthering that specification with classroom when you can reduce the number of words by just placing the teacher in the classroom or saying they are present with the students

Well, thank you again!
Yeah I tend to make my sentences way too long when I start struggling with them, reducing the amount of words is in most cases the best idea then

The usage of 'be' here marks the subjunctive and is totally fine. It's also fairly common and perfectly idiomatic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive#Forms



This isn't a necessary change. It also doesn't convey the meaning very well.



This is awkward and unidiomatic. It's better as "The teacher is in the classroom should there be a problem." or "The teacher is there in the classroom in case of any problems."



It should be 'whose', not 'who's'. And this is a comma splice. These are two independent clauses and must be joined with a semicolon or period if there is no conjunction.

i would also drop the "explaining". it isn't wrong but it very close to the "explanation" you referred to in the previous sentence. I'd take a synonym like "clarifying"