CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Cor... Start Learning for Free
I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.
Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'...
The tense talks about the future,
I think Lakers will win their next game.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'...
**The Use of 'Will' in Predictions**

In English grammar, the modal verb 'will' is frequently used to express predictions or future events. It is used to indicate a strong belief or certainty about something that is expected to happen. In the context of the given statement, "I think Lakers will win their next game," the use of 'will' indicates a prediction or expectation that the Lakers team will emerge victorious in their upcoming game.

**Grammar Explanation**

The usage of 'will' to express future predictions is a common grammatical rule in English. It is used to convey a sense of certainty or belief about a future event. Here are some key points regarding the grammar of using 'will' for predictions:

1. **Subject + Will + Base Verb**: The structure of the sentence follows the pattern of subject + 'will' + base verb. In this case, the subject is "Lakers," and the base verb is "win."

2. **Simple Present Tense**: Even though the prediction refers to a future event, the verb 'will' remains in its simple present form. This is a distinctive feature of English grammar when expressing predictions.

3. **No Auxiliary Verbs**: Unlike other tenses where auxiliary verbs are used, such as "is" or "has," the prediction statement does not require any auxiliary verbs. The use of 'will' alone is sufficient to convey the prediction.

**Context Explanation**

The statement "I think Lakers will win their next game" suggests the speaker's belief or expectation that the Lakers team will be successful in their upcoming game. The speaker expresses confidence in the Lakers' ability to secure a victory.

It is important to note that the statement is based on the speaker's personal opinion or belief. While the speaker is confident in the Lakers' success, it does not guarantee the actual outcome of the game. Predictions are subjective and can be influenced by various factors, such as team performance, player injuries, or the abilities of the opposing team.

In conclusion, the use of 'will' in the given statement denotes a prediction or expectation that the Lakers team will win their next game. However, it is crucial to remember that predictions are not certainties, and the outcome of the game can be influenced by various factors.
Free Test
Community Answer
I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'...
It is given in the sentence "...next game." which is in future tense. Hence, 'will win' is the suitable form of the verb for the blank in the given sentence.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

In December 2010 I appeared on John Stossels television special on scepticism on Fox Business News, during which I debunked numerous pseudoscientific beliefs. Stossel added his own scepticism of possible financial pseudoscience in the form of active investment fund managers who claim that they can consistently beat the market. In a dramatic visual demonstration, Stossel threw 30 darts into a page of stocks and compared their performance since January 1,2010, with stock picks of the 10 largest managed funds. Results: Dartboard, a 31 percent increase; managed funds, a 9.5 percent increase.Admitting that he got lucky because of his limited sample size, Stossel explained that had he thrown enough darts to fully represent the market he would have generated a 12 percent increase the market average a full 2.5 percentage points higher than the 10 largest managed funds average increase. As Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel elaborated on the show, over the past decade more than two thirds of actively managed funds were beaten by a simple low-cost indexed fund [for example, a mutual fund invested in a large number of stocks], and the active funds that win in one period arent the same ones who win in the next period.Stossel cited a study in the journal Economics and Portfolio Strategy that tracked 452 managed funds from 1990 to 2009,finding that only 13 beat the market average. Equating managed fund directors to snake-oil salesmen, Malkiel said that Wall Street is selling Main Street on the belief that experts can consistently time the market and make accurate predictions of when to buy and sell. They cant. No one can. Not even professional economists and not even for large-scale market indicators. As economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson long ago noted in a 1966 Newsweek column: Commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions!Even in a given tech area, where you might expect a greater level of specific expertise, economic forecasters fumble. On December 22, 2010, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on how the great hedge fund financier T. Boone Pickens (chair of BP Capital Management) just abandoned his Pickens Plan of investing in wind energy. Pickens invested $2 billion based on his prediction that the price of natural gas would stay high. It didnt, plummeting as the drilling industrys ability to unlock methane from shale beds improved, a turn of events even an expert such as Pickens failed to see.Why are experts (along with us nonexperts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than a dart-throwing chimpanzee.There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: foxes who know a little about many things do better than hedgehogs who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were thinkers who know one big thing, aggressively extend the explanatoryreach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who do not get it, and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters. High scorers in the study were thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trad e), are sceptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ad hocery that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows focus and increases confidence but also blurs the value of dissenting views and transforms data collection into belief confirmation. One way to avoid being wrong is to be sceptical whenever you catch yourself making predictions based on reducing complex phenomena into one overarching scheme. This type of cognitive trap is why I dont make predictions and why I never will.Q. What is the difference between foxes and hedgehogs?I. Foxes know many little things, while hedgehogs know one big thing.II. Foxes know one big thing, while hedgehogs know many little things.III. Foxes think of themselves as good predictors, while hedgehogs think the opposite of themselves.IV. Foxes do not boast that they are good predictors, while hedgehogs think of themselves as highly skilled.

Top Courses for CAT

I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice I think Lakers ---- (win) their next game.Correct answer is 'will win'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev