Is 'should' redundant?

[Gray]

1)
Is 'should' redundant here --

We should have to be diligent while asking questions.

2)
Can we not say --

We have to be diligent while asking questions.

Or

We should be diligent while asking questions.

3)
What differences are those if there are any?
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Alan]

Hi Gray,

There appear to be two ways of saying this:

We should be diligent ....

or

We have to be diligent ...

'Should' suggests a moral obligation - in other words that is the right thing to do.

'Have to' suggests necessity - in other words it is necessary to do this.

Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Present Simple

[Cerberus™]

Or, "should" could be used in the literary/traditional(/'old-fashioned', if you will) way: then shall/should with I/we means the same as will/would with the other persons. But that is perhaps a bit too much for this kind of question.

[Gray]

Thanks but my question is still unanswered --

1)
Is 'should' redundant here --

We should have to be diligent while asking questions.
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Milanya]

Yes, it is redundant.
It is either "we should" or"we have to," not "we should have to" together.
_________________
con·text - The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

[Cerberus™]