I have read this article in a Indian newspaper "The Hindu"

The minority scholarship quota for Muslims will be reduced drastically from 80% to 58.67% whereas the share of the entire christian community would be nearly 40.6% with the kerala (a state in India) High court ordering a population based allocation of the merit scholarship for the minorities.

My question here is , why will is used at first place and would is used at the second place? can't we use will in both the places?

  • 1
    More context is needed. For example, the language makes sense if the quota reduction is predicted in all cases, whereas the Christian share prediction is predicated on the court outcome (and is therefore hypothetical). Please quote the preceding sentences that provide the context for the quota prediction. Commented May 30, 2021 at 4:16
  • @Chemomechanics Thankyou so much for your help. Now I have edited and provided the link for that news article. Commented May 30, 2021 at 4:21
  • Christian takes a capital C.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 16:51
  • Note that Kerala and Christian are proper nouns, and these should be capitalised.
    – Billy Kerr
    Commented Jan 28 at 15:18
  • "will be reduced drastically" means it's a certainty. It is definitely going to be reduced drastically, whereas "would be nearly" implies some uncertainty, an estimate. Although you could use "will be nearly", I think "would" is better here if the intention is to express uncertainty.
    – Billy Kerr
    Commented Jan 28 at 15:22

1 Answer 1


(The quoted section begins the article, so there is no additional context available.) I agree with you; either "will" or "would" should be used consistently here, as the Muslim/Christian quotas are being presented in parallel. "Will" presupposes that the court's ruling will certainly be applied; "would" is more tentative.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .