"Education should be free of charge."
Translation:Bildung sollte kostenlos sein.
As a native English speaker, I often find it difficult to distinguish a difference in meaning between "should" and "supposed to". So trying to distinguish"soll" from "sollte" only magnifies the confusion.
From my internet research: "I should" implies that I accept myself that I should do something and "I am supposed to" means that some outside entity maintains that I am supposed to do something.
Also, "supposed to" is narrower than "should", and for a subject which is a thinking entity, it implies either duty or intent. For example, "You are supposed to be there", means "You intend to be there, or "you have a duty to be there". But since education is not a thinking entity, this distinction does not apply in this case.
So in this case, "Education should be free of charge" would mean, "I myself believe education should be free of charge" and "Education is supposed to be free of charge" would mean "I was informed that education is supposed to be free of charge".
So when you say "Oft passt ("supposed to") für soll und ("should") für sollte." Is that the distinction you are making?
So here, does "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" mean "I believe education should be free of charge" and "Bildung soll kostenlos sein" mean "I was informed education is supposed to be free of charge?"
Why is my answer, which is the same as the solution, marked as wrong? Why is my entering "Bildung sollte kostenlos sei' wrong when "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" is given as the solution? What is the difference that makes my entering "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein' wrong while your answer of "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" correct?