How will the key to IELTS be used as a background test for student on page 225, and what goes into this question? All questions at Unit 14 are welcomed. Read the answer at Unit 14. I will find these here among the ‘rules’ given there: We use must

if the obligation comes from the speaker.
If you have any free time, you must invite me to visit you. (the speaker wants this)

When there is an institutional rule or a law have to or need to are more common than must :
You have to get a work permit before you go to work. What sort of questions

do I need to know?
What type of things must you / ought you to know? As

already stated, there is therefore, even on the author’s terms, absolutely nothing wrong with must I do, in this context: ” generally are statistical observations, not constitutive linguistic rules.

This kind of neo-prescriptivism is a methodologically unsound abuse of scholarship, and that its incorporation in formal tests which profoundly affect students’ academic and career prospects is an outrage.

If I vote during this time, I’ll get no votes. I’m assuming that Hopkins and Cullen are more familiar than I am with the canons of grammaticality embraced by the IELTS writers. Let’s discuss the quality of their book, which should be taken as a reference to assist you with reading the stuff you need to know about and excel at IELTS, because to start with it is a lot more difficult.” I advise you to pay close attention to everything the translator they say and follow it to the letter—until you have passed the examination and are free to follow your own linguistic instincts, which at least in this instance

are impeccable.

A pig of ballast was cut from a piece of a weight of a hundred on a ship, often for weighing a hundred pounds. These were carried on the lower part of the hull as ballast as the ship’s stability.

Baeticus uses these pigs as an offensive weapon: he hoists them up to the yardarm and as he comes alongside an opposing vessel swings them over her and drops them from a considerable height hoping to smash a hole through the benches, deck, and the hull itself.

The good guys and the bad guys are standard narrative roles like the hero and the villain.

Every spectator or reader of a narrative expects these roles to be played by some character (character) so they are in that sense fully specified within any discourse about the narrative, and entitled to the definite article.

This doesn’t mean that the spectator/reader knows which characters in the narrative play those roles (figuring that out is part of the fun), and it doesn’t mean that those roles actually will be played in every narrative, merely that the roles are part of the expectations that a spectator/reader brings to the genre.

If a bad guy is good, then maybe good guy is villain or good guy by indefinite article. If you say “I think Jim is a good guy” or “a hero”, you mean something a little different: you think that Jim exhibits qualities which fit him to play that narrative role without asserting that he actually does play the role in some narrative.