From a book:
So how does it matter if you have a very white name or a very black name? Over the years, a series of “audit studies” have tried to measure how people perceive different names. In a typical audit study, a researcher would send two identical (and fake) résumés, one with a traditionally white name and the other with an immigrant or minority-sounding name, to potential employers. The “white” résumés have always gleaned more job interviews.

Could you please explain the meaning of "would" here?



Over the years, . . . researchers habitually sent two identical (and fake) reumes


would carries the suggestion that the writer is talking about hypothetical studies. He refers to 'a typical audit study'.

used to (and habitually sent) sounds more like you are talking about studies that were actually conducted.

I wouldn' say 'used to' is wrong, but 'would' is better.

But note that in the real world of English, I think most people would simply say

In a typical audit study, a researcher sent two identical (and fake) résumés . . .


Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

I was told we can't use "used to" here. Could you tell me why? Thanks!

 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies