What's wrong here? Shouldn't they be equivalent?

In conversational or casual AmE, either choice is acceptable (I'm not necessarily saying "correct," just that your meaning would be well-understood). I think this question raises an issue similar to an old joke: >"Can I watch some TV?" >"I don't know, *can* you?" The point being made is that the questioner is asking for permission to watch TV and so should use *may to* judge the probability of being able to do so, instead of seeking validation of their physical ability to watch TV by using *can*. In your question, "may" is used to indicate *probability*: the clouds are black, indicating a high likelihood of rain; "could" indicates wether the clouds have the *ability* to create rain. My two cents, anyway.

Quite literally all of these options are correct except “needs”

May implies a more likely possibility. So "may" makes the most sense because the black clouds suggest a storm is on the way already. Some people have mentioned "might" would also work. "It might rain this evening" suggests the speaker is less sure compared to "may." If it was sunny out but the speaker heard on the news there was a chance of showers, saying, "It might rain this evening," technically makes more sense than "may." "Could" doesn't make a ton of sense in this exact sentence because it's implying it's one of many possibilities, like it could rain, it could be sunny, an active volcano could erupt. All these things are technically things that *could* happen, but since we're only talking about black clouds, we'd be more likely to guess rain.

Here's how I believe your test maker or teacher is viewing this: "May" implies there is a real probability it might rain in a determined time frame (soon, tonight, tomorrow), whereas "could" implies that it's not out of the realm of possibility it might rain at some point in the future. Example 1 - I was looking at the weather report, and it seems like it may rain during the game Example 2 - The way our luck is going, it could rain while we're at the beach However, the reality is any native English speaker would understand either word choice. This isn't a case of using "could of" instead of "could have" where you're wrong but people know what you mean. This is a situation where the words are so close as to basically be interchangeable.

Only answer that’s entirely wrong here would be “needs.” could and may would mean the same thing here, and “ought to” would mean the same thing as “probably could”

In this context I sure think so.

Although "may" is totally fine here, I'd probably never use it in daily life. "Could" or "might", definitely. I might use "ought to" to be sarcastic or dramatic.

I think what the one who made the exercise was going for is another way of saying "Maybe it will rain this evening.", but "could" also works here and as some have said might even be more natural. Also one might even say "It ought to rain the evening." Expressing an expectation of the world actually following through on its sinister signs (I am at least partially kidding).

In England the answer is _will_

Could and might are seen as past tense and this is a future form so May

Either could or may are perfectly acceptable. “May” is a little posher sounding and not as common in most parts of England that I’ve lived in. I can probably guess a few reasons why the question writer considers “could” incorrect, but they’re ultimately wrong.

Really minimal difference. I guess may is technically more ‘correct’ and formal but using either in spoken language would be fine. As with the other commenter, I would use ‘might’ in this sentence.

I don't have an answer for you, but as an English speaker my whole life, I would either say 'could' or 'might' in that sentence not 'may'.

This is such an interesting question! I’m no native speaker, but here’s my idea. “Could” is intended as both the simple past of the modal verb “to can” and the present conditional. In my opinion, the action of raining takes place in a future time with respect to when the sentence is formulated, so “may” is the most appropriate choice, as “could” has no future meaning and should be used in a past tense or in a present tense in a context of politeness when making requests. I may be mistaken, though 😅 but I would say that a native speaker would definitely get you if you said “It could rain tonight”! Is this a matter of pure British English, perhaps?

Both are fine. May/might is (probably) more common.

I didn’t catch what is on photo, did u choose the “could” one? If u choose it,it is wrong. Since it’s modal verb of deduction. Additionally,when I was in the situation like that,there are many sorts of them. So,there are four ones: might,must,should,could. I chose the must in order to have been confident,actually it’s not true,since even if we are confident on our decision with weather we can’t use the must modal verb,it is counted as a fickle thing. If u have a question,feel free to ask me

Could implies ability, may implies probability. "I could jump off the building" = "It wouldn't be difficult for me to jump off the building" "I may jump off the building" = "I'm considering jumping off the building"

This question makes me angry. Your answer and the "correct" answer are both equally applicable. The only thing that discludes "ought to" from being applicable is the sentence is lacking the article "the." Do you see the black clouds? It ought to rain this evening," would be appropriate. The only thing stopping the answer from being "needs" is the adjective "any." "Do you see any clouds? It needs to rain this evening." This is a question for a high school level English test for native speakers.

app is wrong. “may” sounds like you’re giving permission for it to rain. it still works but it’s weird. “could” is fine but i would say “might.”

Correct. May , Might & Could are equivalent, although May also has two definitions "permission" and "possibility"

What are these tests?

I think the distinction between may and could here lies in the “possibility” those words would imply. ‘Could’ is often related to a hypothetical possibility while may is more tangible and often based on evidence. Here you see the sentence prior is an indication from which the second sentence is built upon, hence may is the answer.

Could or might would be what I use. “It may rain” feels overly formal for normal speech. That’s just me tho. To any native speaker they could would work just as well as may

I am not native but I would say may or might because there is possibility.

I would say "might". "Could" sounds a lot more natural than "may" to me.

May: The highest likelyhood something will happen Could: Less likely Might: Least likely Since the couds are black, the possibility is very high.

what is the app name?

May is technically better, since could is too vague. However, the word best here is might unless there is a reason you have to speak formally, like your English class because it's meaning increases the chance of probability. However, I have never heard someone say "It may rain." It's always might.

Personally, I would use "could" here, "may" sounds quite formal. I'm sure there's a lot of variation between dialects though.

The two are not equivalent. As used in slang, both can be interchanged, but in formal English, they do have different use cases, though it does get rather complicated. "Could" usually refers to "having the ability to do something". It could always rain, because that possibility always exists. "May", in this context, refers to a likely outcome or a prediction about what future events will take place. "Judging by those clouds, it may rain shortly. Of course, it also may not. Really, either could happen." Here, the use of "may" refers to both possible predictions. "May" is used for both predictions, but "could" is used to state the capability for both to occur. "May" is also used when asking for permission. "May I be excused?" "Could" is used to ask if something is possible. "I could leave if I had a car." "May you lend me your keys? I could pick the groceries up for you if you do." Again, "may" refers to asking permission, and "could" is used to indicate if a thing can or cannot happen. This also brings up another bit of wordplay. I may choose not to do something even if I could do it. "I may get the groceries for you later." "Will you, or won't you, that is the question." "Well, I could if needed." "Obviously you have the ability, but I need a commitment."

Yes, they should be equivalent in an everyday context (as in the example phrase). If you were dealing with an overly formal situation, "may" would be more "proper".

What app is that?

They are fundamentally different, but also have overlapping meanings. Could is referring to the ability to rain. May is referring to the probability of rain. Both can be used in this sentence and the overall meaning is the same, but the word you choose to use will show how you view the question.

I would say either is fine, and "could" even feels to me like it would be more common. I would even argue that, without additional context, "ought to" could also be correct. If, for example, the weather report said there would be rain, and now someone is asking if you see clouds because it ought to (is supposed to) rain.

May is more formal and most of the time formality is taught so therefore formal yes

Might would be better, as it's technically a hypothetical.

In daily usage, “could” and “may” mean nearly identical things. In my opinion, the question you screenshotted is absolutely dumb as shit if the app is trying to teach you how to speak naturally. Rant aside, my best/educated guess (1) is that “could” more strongly implies (has a hidden meaning) that something is being chosen, while “may” doesn’t have that sense. To ME, at least, “I could eat a burger, or I could eat a sandwich.” sounds like you’re choosing between a burger or a sandwich, while “I may eat a burger, or I may eat a sandwich.” seems to leave the possibility that you might not choose either, or you might not even eat at all. For future reference, “could” can also specifically talk about a possibility in the past, while “may” simply cannot. So “I could eat twenty hot dogs as a teenager.” is a grammatical sentence, but *”I may eat twenty hot dogs as a teenager.” is ungrammatical. (2) Honestly, the class of words you’re being tested on (helper/auxiliary verbs): {can, could, might, must, ought to, should, need to, will, would, etc.} is extremely difficult to teach in my opinion because of how interchangeable these words are and how tiny the differences between them can be. So this is one of the few instances you can safely blame the test in my opinion. Note (1): For linguists: took an advanced semantics course that touched on modals, but I’m working off memory and educated extrapolation here. Let me know if this is simply a wrong take. Note (2): English, and language as a whole probably, is weird when it comes to pretending hypothetical situations are true. “I may eat twenty hot dogs as a teenager.” could totally be considered grammatical if you were a superhero who could change their biological age at will.

Technically, it's incorrect. It's basically the equivalent of you saying "can I X?" And your teacher replying "I don't know... CAN you?" This is however really nit-picky, because it's become so normal to replace 'may' with 'could' in this context

"might" is more common. "May" is correct, but "could" is correct, too. "Ought to" would also work in a colloquial sense.

You can say, “it could rain tonight” in any context without any evidence. It *could*, sure. May is more definitive; it implies a specific and real possibility based on something tangible. “I could punch you” This is a simple statement of general possibility. Anyone could say this to another person in any context and it makes sense; you *could* punch them. “I may/might punch you.” This expresses intent and motive. It is a significant possibility and on the table as a viable option.

Since no one I have seen has made mention of the fact here is the main difference between the two that I’d like to point out. May: having a chance to. Could: More commonly used to indicate an inclination towards something. The connotations are slightly different and while both may work within this sentence it would be similar to saying something like “We need to take a minute survey of the island” Instead of “We need to take a small survey of the island”

"Could" is a physical possibility "I could run for ages". While "may" is just a probability, it's approximately 50% chance of happening. English is not my mother tongue, but if I remember correctly my lessons, it should be like that.

Both are correct. It could/may/might rain this evening. All of these state that there is a chance of rain. Any test or teacher telling you that one is correct and another isn't is just plain wrong.

there's slightly difrent conotations, but those 2 are nearly in distinguishable

from my American English (mostly California English) experience, “may” is the best option here—but like other commenters have said, i’d naturally say “might” or “looks like it will” instead. in this phrase, “could” does technically work, but it wouldn’t be the typical option. here’s how i interpret the different options: * “It **may** rain this evening.” = “It looks like rain is coming this evening.” (general comment on the weather) * “It **could** rain this evening.” = “Rain is possible today, which is something else to consider.” (comment on the weather as a factor in making plans)

May is more proper. Could is used more often. May is the right answer in the context: a question is asked that implies elevated likelihood. May = with evidence. Could = physical possibility

Either is fine in casual conversation. Without further context, "may" is the more technically correct word, but I think most people would be more likely to use the word "might" in conversation. This is also regional. I am speaking as an American English speaker. British English may (or could or might) be different.

They're basically the same yes. Though I think "might" is probably more common than either of the options listed here.

Not to mention that “ought to” also works

To me, "could" implies that a choice will be made in the future regarding whether or not it will rain. Which doesn't seem right to me. "may" simply implies that there is a chance that it will rain.

“It may rain this evening” sounds to me like “I have reason to believe that it will rain”. “It could rain this evening” sounds like “I acknowledge that it is possible that it will rain” Depending on the context, there’s basically no difference. English is a stupid language and you’re very brave to be learning it

Could or may are both acceptable. Might would be (marginally, stylistically) better than both.

So here’s “why” from what I remember. Cuz I had this exact discussion with an English teacher. May indicates a higher likelihood of something occurring and could indicates a lower chance. If there’s heavy dark clouds then there’s a high likelihood of rain. If there were a few clouds or maybe they were just light gray then it COULD rain but more then likely it won’t. We use it basically interchangeably at this point but I remember it as the annoying teachers in school trying to teach you “proper grammar” If I asked “could I be excused” would almost never get approval from a teacher but “may I be excused” would almost certainly get approval

What app is this

I think this goes back to the “may I” vs “can I” questions in primary school. 😂 but doesn’t seem as applicable here

The idea is that it is likely to rain. It may rain = more than 50% chance - it is likely. It could rain only indicates possibility, more than 0 % chance. Don’t blame me, I’m just telling you what they are testing ✌️

There *is* some subtle distinction between “could” and “may”, but I don’t think that anyone actually adheres to that in normal conversation. In fact, I’m certain I would’ve used “could” in this context. What I think the test is going for, though, is the following: *Could* can be seen as referring to more general/time independent possibilities. *May* can be seen as more specifically expressing future possibility. If you remove the first part of the question and just leave “it ____ rain this evening” it’s easier to see the difference. “It *could* rain this evening” can be interpreted to mean it *could* rain this evening just like it *could* rain any evening. “It *may* rain this evening” more clearly states that there’s a possibility it will rain **specifically** this evening. However, because the sentence we already got all the information we needed about the timeframe from the first part of the question, “Do you see black clouds?”, I don’t think the distinction matters very much at all.

You’re looking at the clouds so while “It could rain….” can work you might use it in the context that you don’t know for sure. “It could rain tomorrow” (I haven’t seen the forecast and I’m guessing). “It may rain tomorrow” (the forecast told me but it wasn’t a definite). So “it may” or “it might” implies knowledge that it’s going to happen. Looking at the clouds is that knowledge 🙂🙂 It may rain this evening. It could rain tomorrow as well.

“Could” is incorrect in this instance because its ambiguity doesn’t tie back into the previous statement/ question referencing black clouds. “May/ might” is formal, and it also compliments the black cloud reference.

"Could" refers to the physical *capability* it has to rain. "May" refers to the *probability* it will rain. In regular informal speech, both would be used interchangeably, but there *is* a difference, but most people won't know or care what that is. Both are technically acceptable as there's a lack of context

“Could” is more hypothetical (cfr “it could happen to you”). “Might” is more probable.

Wow

I believe the question "Do you see black clouds?" Is supposed to be interpreted as, "I don't see black clouds, do you?" vs. as a native speaker, it feels like the question reads as "Do you see *those* black clouds?" Which changes the context. If you see black clouds, the black clouds could rain. If you are asking if someone sees black clouds, the second sentence is a separate follow-up thought. Do you see *any* black clouds? It may rain.

Both work

May usually indicates a choice or option, while could indicates probability or potential. I would actually say could is more correct than may, since there is no option in raining or not.

This question is simply too ambiguous to put on a test. Test makers should know better.

"could" is fine. It's not equivalent but close enough. Rain is never a sure thing until it's upon you. Grammatically, either is correct.

imo saying could isn’t as natural is may or might so that’s probably why it said it’s wrong.

Id say “might”

"Could" implies the possibility of something happening regardless of the cause. However in this specific question, the person is asking whether you can see black clouds or not. In that person's point of view, they already have this mindset of black cloud = rain, so the whole clause becomes a "may/may not" situation.

In this case, may is correct. "May" indicates a *possibility* of something happening, while "could" indicates that something has the *ability* to happen. Here's a couple examples: "He is so strong, he could pick up a car" - indicates that a person has the ability to perform the task, but does not suggest the event will happen. "He is so strong, he may pick up the car" - indicates that he has the ability to perform the task, and suggests it is a possibility.

Yes, whatever you’re using is garbage

I am a native speaker. "Could" and "May "are basically the same. "Ought To" makes it a complete sentence, but it doesn't follow the context of the previous sentence. "May" is technically the most correct.

As a native speaker, “may” is technically correct but very formal. I’m sure it depends on what region you’re from, but I would never expect to hear someone use it like this in casual conversation. It’s not a great question though, because I would say “might” before I would say any of those given answers. I think “could” would also be correct, it just changes the meaning slightly.

May indicates possibility Could indicates capability Seeing dark clouds means that it's possible that there will be rain. (Even if ironically that means that the cloud has the capability of raining when it's dark)

Ought to would be grammatically correct, and if someone said do you see dark clouds? It ought to rain later, I would consider the weirdest part of that sentence “do you see black clouds” I would say do you see the/those black clouds.

Is it for to rain?

“May” is more grammatically correct. But either would be understandable.

"Could" implies that the cloud is capable of causing rain. "May" is saying there's a chance of rain.

The test. The test is wrong. I would never say "may", "might" or "could". Ought to is also fine.

May implies more likely.  For example, it could rain any day of the year.  And yes, it "may" rain any day of the year.  But may means it's more likely to happen. 

\[native speaker\] I hate these. While "needs" is obviously wrong, the "could", "ought to", and "may" are all casually fine, even including the context of "Do you see the black clouds?". The only bonus to "may" over "could" is that it isn't a subjunctive (as in, say "if there were clouds, then it could rain.."), the same reason "may" fits better than "might". The "ought to" isn't quite right - it sounds informal here - like "oughta" ;-) - since nothing has implied that rain is **desireable** in this case. So, sure, "may" is, very subtly, better than the others. But only "needs" is outright wrong, and native speakers routinely use all three of the rest, as well as "might" and "likely to", or even "looks like". Don't feel too bad having chosen "could", since many native speakers would have as well. However, were I writing formally, I'd **want** to use "may" in this situation - it really is the best fit. \[aside: some of the other posters are reading "may" as a request for permission, but that obviously isn't "may"'s only meaning, it isn't even the primary definition\]

Definitely "ought to"

This is one of those times where there needs to be more than one right answer to these. May and could sound correct.

Can/could talks about possibility whereas may/might talks about probability.. the classical example being - 1. May I sit? *seeking for permission* 2. Can I sit? *whether you can or cannot sit as a task*

As an native English speaker (and speaking only for myself) i generally use 'could' in places where im talking about ability or allowance. " I could come over later" (I am able to come over) and 'may/might' to speak to possibility "I may come over later" (there i a chance i will come over)... If that helps at all?

I'd argue that all of the answers except "needs" could work in the right context. I've definitely said something to the effect of "it ought to rain this evening."

This is just the standard "this is technically correct but really it's just how people used to speak and the rules haven't changed yet"

I think grammatically might or may is correct. “Could” is the future tense of “can”, and if you think of it in present tense, saying “It can rain” is always true. It _can_ rain at anytime, but will it? It might because of the clouds. I think this is related to the age old, “Teacher, can I go to the bathroom?” “Yes, you can but no you may not”

Both are fine, but could does have a capability connotation while may is mainly used for possibilities. They are just being way too strict.

Could and may are equivalent and none of those four are grammatically incorrect. This question sucks

I'm guessing they want you to use "may/might" since you have proof or evidence (the clouds) that It might actually rain. There is a real chance based on something real. "Could" would imply that the possibility exists which is also true but probably not what they were going for in this case.

I think most native speakers would say "might", so if the objective is to speak or write like a native speaker, that answer would be on there.

Is this a "May I use the bathroom vs can/ could i use the bathroom" kind of thing?

Ought to is also correct here.

Reminds me of the smart ass response you'd get from teachers growing up when you ask if you can use the bathroom. "You ***may*** use the bathroom" or some similar condescending response.

My totally subjective take: 1. Could - sounds like opining specifically on the ability of the weather to rain. "yes I think the weather has the capacity to rain". Odd but not wrong. 2. May - sounds like we're discussing the weather in the billiards room in Downton Abbey c.1905. Quite formal but, again, not wrong. 3. Might - the way I personally would describe the likelihood of rain in casual conversation.

I love "may" because it's a polite expression..but in this case means most probably because of the evidente due to the clouds