The use of the 2nd conditional —aka improbable or hypothetical conditional— in English is quite elusive for most students. Not only is it difficult per se but also hard to remember because we hardly ever use in our daily conversations, regardless of the language.
In this in-class speaking exercises we will try to tackle this problem and use the improbable conditional for real —see what I did there 😉.
This is a series of moral dilemmas, of situations that are utterly improbable to happen in real life but which do require you to apply this conditional and put it to a good use.
They are mental exercises aimed at expanding your thinking and making you suss out the best course of action, if there’s any at all, while exploring your own moral compass. So… what would you do?
the UN member
Imagine you were a member of the UN Security Council and you had to cast your vote in an upcoming election concerning the systematic violation of human rights in one country.
This state is ruled by a dictator who brutally prevents any kind of democratic advance in the country and who also persecutes militarily certain ethnic minorities, which are being subject to ethnic cleansing.
You have to decide among the three possible courses of action the UN has laid down:
-
- No intervention. This is an internal affair concerning this state, and this state only, and it would be perceived as the UN meddling in.
- An economic embargo, which would be enforced by military presence at the border and which would mainly have an effect on civil population, who doesn’t necessarily support the dictator.
- A military intervention aimed at defending these ethnic minorities and bringing down the dictator. There is an acceptable chance of success but it would certainly mean the death of thousands of people in the process.
to tabloid or not to tabloid
Suppose you were the chief editor of an online magazine which was experiencing a rough patch. Your competitors have seen their business booming by airing socialites’ scandals and personal life but your business, and your employees’ salaries along it, are at stake.
You have come across some juicy information about a celebrity’s personal life which, if published, would increase greatly your magazine’s popularity and hence its revenue in advertising. It could also potentially ruin this person’s life, both personally and professionally.
You are faced with taking one of the following decisions, for which you also have to give reason:
-
- Go ahead and publish the information, arguing that this is what the audience wants and it’s nothing but a democratic decision honoring free press.
- Go ahead and publish the information, arguing that the current economic situation is quite precarious and it would be very hard for your employees to find another job if the magazine goes out of business.
- Withhold the information as per moral reasons. After all, you are a serious business. Doing so could result in half of your staff being laid off.
- Withhold the information but blackmail the celebrity so as to have a scoop. This could lead them to depression or even suicide.
the negotiator
Imagine you were a police negotiator and were in the middle of a hostage crisis. Let’s say that some terrorists had seized the National Bank and were threatening to kill all the hostages unless a ransom was paid. What would you do?
-
- Would you cave in to their demands? Doing so could potentially save the people’s lives but in the long term it could also mean that more terrorists would resort to kidnapping to further their goals.
- Would you ignore their demands while plotting a way in, even if by doing so some innocent people would die?
- Do you think your decision could potentially be influenced by whether there were somebody you knew amid the situation?
- I would definitely summon Van Damme, Schwarzenegger and the likes of them to sort out the situation because this is a mental exercise and I could do whatever my imagination allows to.
