"I should read the article."
Translation:Yo debería leer el artículo.
It is about consistency. Either they let us omit subject pronouns every time, or they require them every time there could be confusion. But not randomly require a pronoun one time out of twenty. In cases like this, as explained to me by a native speaker, in the absence of prior context, the assumption is yo, and if you want third person you put in the pronoun. If you omit it the yo is assumed in the absence of prior or following clarification.
Thanks for the link, but I am still none the wiser. It said that both forms are used, especially in the example given "¿Qué debo comer? " vs. "¿Qué debería comer?". I had typed "debo" in this question, and was looking for answers as to why it was wrong. Conclusion: only slightly wrong. Like "quisiera" or "gustaría". So tricky.
In this case the sentence was rejected on account of the personal pronoun "yo" being left out. Yet, in the same unit and on the same day, "entonces él debe ser detenido" was also rejected on account of the personal pronoun "él" being included. Duo, such inconsistencies do not inspire confidence; kindly review those sentences and accept them with and without the personal pronouns. Thank you.
This is correct, though it's not what they are looking for in this lesson. Both "debo" and "debería" work as translations. It's because of the dual nature of the sentence in English. Think of it like this:
If you say, "I should read the article", you could be referring to the fact that right now the article is something you should be reading. So presently, there is something you should do, which is read the article. You could also be saying that conditionally, something you should do is read the article. The difference is slight. If you add more information to the sentence the difference becomes more clear.
"I should read the article, but I'm feeling lazy so I'm watching television instead."
"I should read the article, and I will if I have time."