+0
Composition#1:
Some people boast they are so good at swimming that they will never drown even if they are thrown into the sea (far from land).They should realize, however, that it is one thing to swim in a swimming pool, but that it is quite another to swim in the sea with their clothes on.

Composition#2:
Some people claim to be great swimmers and boast that they would never drown even if they were thrown into the sea (far from land). These people should know, however, that swimming in a pool is very different from swimming in the sea, fully clothed.

A native speaker's comment
All discussion of being thrown into the sea far enough from land for drowning to be a possibility must be HYPOTHETICAL. Also, since being thrown into the sea like this is unlikely, being thrown into the sea like this MORE THAN ONCE is absurdely hypothetical.

For these reason, 'will not drown...if they are thrown' and 'would
never drown' are awkward. Better to use 'would not drown'.
--------------

I understand the hypothetical part of that comment, but I don't know if I really understand the more-than-once part of it. Plus I'm not really sure why the 'never' here is awkward.

Could you help me?

And another question. If I changed '
with their clothes on/fully clothed' to 'wearing their clothes', would it still sound OK? If not, then why not?
Comments  
Hmm. I suppose that your critic presumes 'more than once' because of 'never'. Never seems a bit odd if considered only during the one instance-- after all, the swimmer, if he didn't drown, would eventually be rescued or reach land. Still, without the comment, I don't believe I would think of that when reading the passage-- I would just pass it over.

Wearing their clothes / with their clothes on is fine, but the more expected is fully clothed, I think.
never could be interpreted in this instance:

- not at any point in time
or
- not under any circumstances

I don't think I have a problem with its presence in this text, especially if the 2nd meaning is considered.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I think the "even if" is used simply as an example, and the "even" makes all the difference in the will/would and never discussion.

I will never drown. I will not drown, even if you do this thing to me.

But if it were "I would not drown if you do this" (without the "even if" phrasing) then the "never" would sound odd, and the "would" is appropriate.

(I agree with Mr. M. on the fully clothed.)
I would agree that "never" here might suggest "not in any circumstances", i.e. "I am such a good swimmer, that in no circumstances will I drown (not even if you throw me into the sea, far from land)". It might also suggest "however long the period of immersion".

I would disagree with the native speaker's comments on the "hypotheticality" of the situation (I hope it wasn't me, in a post I've now forgotten).

Both structures ("will...are", "would...were") present hypotheses. The verb forms in the first example make the action seem "immediate", while the verb forms in the second make the action seem more "remote".

MrP
MrPedanticI would agree that "never" here might suggest "not in any circumstances", i.e. "I am such a good swimmer, that in no circumstances will I drown (not even if you throw me into the sea, far from land)". It might also suggest "however long the period of immersion".
So you don't really think the 'never' here is awkward?
MrPedanticI would disagree with the native speaker's comments on the "hypotheticality" of the situation (I hope it wasn't me, in a post I've now forgotten).

Both structures ("will...are", "would...were") present hypotheses. The verb forms in the first example make the action seem "immediate", while the verb forms in the second make the action seem more "remote".

Hmm... I thought what the native speaker meant by 'HYPOTHETICAL' was something unlikely, that which rarely happens, so the subjunctive mood was natual here...
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hello Taka

I'm not overfond of that "never"; but I suppose the author might want to convey the emphatic nature of the boasters' boasts.

I think you're right about the interpretation of the native speaker's "hypothetical". The subjunctive is fine, and perfectly natural here; but the author also has the option of the "type 1" conditional, for immediacy and vividness.

(A "type 1" can also make an unlikely event seem slightly humorous.)

MrP
MrPedantic
I'm not overfond of that "never"; but I suppose the author might want to convey the emphatic nature of the boasters' boasts.

I was puzzled by the 'MORE THAN ONCE' part of that native speaker's comments. I thought what he/she wanted to say was that it was not really natural to use 'never' unless it happened at least once.

You don't think his/her idea is really correct? Can I use 'never' whenever I want to emphasize negativity?
MrPedantic I think you're right about the interpretation of the native speaker's "hypothetical". The subjunctive is fine, and perfectly natural here; but the author also has the option of the "type 1" conditional, for immediacy and vividness.

(A "type 1" can also make an unlikely event seem slightly humorous.)

OK. I understand.