Rachel Adams
Key Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2018
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Georgia
- Current Location
- Georgia
might is the best answer.
Whether could is wrong depends what you mean by 'wrong'. Using could is not ungrammatical, but I assume that the test instruction did not ask that you 'select all grammatical answers', so I think it's fair to say that could is wrong. The task instruction should have said something like 'select the best answer', or 'select the most appropriate answer'.
"Might" is the correct answer. While "It could rain later" is not grammatically wrong, it's a non sequitur: it doesn't relate to the previous statement.
Swan did not mention those percentage figures.
Why is it the best answer?
Please don't think that I argue with you or with any of the native speakers here. I said many times that I find the forum very helpful. I just don't undertsand one thing. In grammar books I read the rules but when I ask about them or complete tests I find out the actual use of the modal verbs is not based on the rules I read.
For example, according to Swan ''May, might and could are used to talk about the present or future. I may go to London (perhaps a 50% chance. Joe might come with me. (Perhaps a 30 % chance).''
The screenshot in post 6 is from Longman but this screen with percentage figures is from Swan.View attachment 3511 It says just like Longman that ''Could'' is possible.
Okay, Piscean and I were wrong when we said Swan doesn't use percentages. I must say that that depresses me somewhat. That is a disastrously poor way of attempting to teach how modal verbs express possibility.
Put simply, it could rain at any time (unless you live somewhere where it never rains) but today, specifically, it actually might rain. It's possible that the comment is based on a weather forecast or by looking at the sky! I don't subscribe to the idea of percentages being used with such modals, but in this scenario, "might" indicates a stronger possibility than "could".
It doesn't say that. It says they're similar.I found a similar example in Murphy's English Grammar with "Could". Just like Swan and Longman it seems to be suggesting that "could/might/may" are used interchangeably.
The example is the test and the book's example are similar too. It says ''The weather could change.'' The test's example says ''It could rain later.''It doesn't say that. It says they're similar.
Both are true statements. When you're advising someone to take an umbrella, you generally express a little higher likelihood. "Could" means it's not objectively impossible; "might" means you think there's a reasonable chance it will happen.The example is the test and the book's example are similar too. It says ''The weather could change.'' The test's example says ''It could rain later.''
Put simply, it could rain at any time (unless you live somewhere where it never rains) but today, specifically, it actually might rain. It's possible that the comment is based on a weather forecast or by looking at the sky! I don't subscribe to the idea of percentages being used with such modals, but in this scenario, "might" indicates a stronger possibility than "could".
If a native speaker used ''may'' instead, would it indicate a stronger possibility than ''might''?
The problem with tests like that is that there is often no single correct answer. No one is saying that "It could rain later" is wrong. However, if you want to know what native speakers would actually say, you'll have to just take it from us that it's "It might rain later".