{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04914933837429111, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.698924731182796, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
‘ OUGHT ’ AND ‘ BETTER ’

Sentences using ‘ought’ appear to have some kind of non-descriptive force (e.g. commending, guiding actions, committing the speaker), in which case it would seem that no ‘ought’ statement can follow logically from purely factual statements lacking such force. Yet from factual statements about slowness and liability to breakdown of alternative means of transport it seems possible validly to infer: ‘In order to get to London by noon you ought to go by train’. Does ‘ought’ sometimes follow from ‘is’ ?