Your two sentences are semantically identical. At one time have to was regarded as strictly informal, but it is now generally acceptable in all but the stuffiest registers.
The most important difference between must and have to is that must is a modal verb and therefore limited to the simple present and past constructions‡, while have to is formally a ...
Either are perfectly acceptable - in terms of wasn't able vs couldn't. I have heard both said in the past and wouldn't think either sounded unnatural.
On a side note, unless you have the exam in your hand and pointing at a particular question, I would change it to:
I wasn't able to/couldn't do that question
For example, you're chatting after an exam:
Your two sentences are similar but not identical.There is a little difference between 'must' and 'have to'.The sentence with 'must' means the speaker feels the obligation whereas the sentence with 'have to' means someone else is the reason behind obligation.
e.g.If you want to buy a gift for your mother's birthday.You can say:
I must buy a gift for my ...
Yes, that's right. It follows the normal conjugation for "to have".
He couldn't find a date so he had to go to the dance with his sister.
At the last minute he got a date so that he didn't have to go to the dance with his sister.
While they were traveling they had to eat all kinds of unusual things.
While they were traveling they didn't have to ...
One of the purposes of "would + bare infinitive" is to express the future in the past, and this is the correct form here.
You should say either
I didn't know that I would have to put my CPR training to use on my own uncle
I didn't know that I would have to put my CPR training to the test on my own uncle
While you could also use the "had to" ...
Question 1: Could it be possible to use present continuous instead of "will be working"? "He is sure that he is working for them next year."
Some other languages may allow you to add "tomorrow" or "yesterday" to the present tense, and the result is understood. Even in English, there may be certain cases of that... However, typically in English you ought ...
In this specific case, "can" and "be able to" are interchangeable. But be careful, because there are subtle differences.
For example, your question start with "Can I use..." - this is an example of using "can" with the meaning "is allowed to". Consequently, "can you do it?" may have a very different meaning from "are you able to do it?", and sometimes you ...
You are correct; the example sentence has an error.
"Can able to" is not correct.
In the most straightforward context, I would recommend:
...you will be able to...
"Could", "would", or "should" introduce some uncertainty. In some cases, such as describing a hypothetical situation, these words would be appropriate. However, in instructions such as here, ...
They both make perfect sense, and each is normal and acceptable.
The one consideration I can think of that would distinguish the two is simply the fact that I couldn't is only two words as opposed to the four in I wasn't able to.
Also, I couldn't is easier to pronounce than I wasn't, given the movement of the tongue required for each.
As such, the I ...
idiom: to have something to say about something. [have an opinion about x]
I have nothing to say about the elections.
That just means you want to say something about the elections. You have an opinion about them.
to have something to say about something is unrelated to: to have to say something.
To have to say something means: to feel obligated to say ...
"Have to" is being used in this case to explain that faiths literally have a statement to give, not that there is an obligation for them to say it.
to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement
It might be easier to understand with something other than speech:
Alice: The church on ...
There is absolutely no difference in the meaning of the two sentences.
If you said "I was going to ..." then that would imply that you had changed your mind or that something had happened to frustrate your previous intention.
"Need", in this context, has its usual meaning. The key here is the use of "seem". This makes it Deirdre's opinion about the woman's state of mind (what she needs) and not a statement of fact. For example:
Hello, can I help you? You seem to be lost.
I don't know if the person is actually lost, but that seems to be my perception of their state of mind....
You are right that the concept of "need" could refer either to a healthy need or a pathological need (like an addiction). Common sense tells me that "Dear Diedre" means the latter, and is advising against risk-taking.
But if you read her answer with the other meaning in mind, it does sound a little humorous, as if Diedre's advice is going to be to take up ...
To have to X means to be required or forced to do X. It's often equivalent to must X.
I have to go now = I am required to go now, I must go now.
One meaning of to have to be X is to be required or forced to have X completed or done.
I have to be finished by 2:00pm.
I have to be gone before John gets here.
Another meaning of to have to be X is ...
Semantically, I would say that have to implies some sort of constraining obligation.
I don't want to do this, but I have to.
(The situation / somebody forces me)
I must work harder if I want to succeed.
(I am motivating myself to work harder)