In the following sentence improve the underlined part with the help of given…

Concept: When a conditional sentence's if-clause is in the simple past tense (a hypothetical present/future condition, sometimes called the second conditional), its main clause takes a modal auxiliary (would/could/might) followed by the BASE FORM of the verb. A past-perfect modal (might/may + have + past participle) belongs only with an if-clause that is itself in the past perfect, such as “If it had not rained.”

Application: The if-clause here, “If it did not rain,” is in the simple past, so it sets up a hypothetical present/future condition. The main clause therefore needs a modal plus the base verb: “might reach.” The original underlined phrase, “may reach,” already has the correct base-verb structure, but “may” reads as a more assertive, likely possibility, while “might” better carries the clearly hypothetical, less-certain sense this kind of sentence calls for — so replacing “may” with “might” is the correct improvement.

Cross-check:

• “might have reached” and “may have reached” are both past-perfect modal forms; they would only pair with an if-clause in the past perfect (“If it had not rained”), not the simple past used here.

• “might reached” breaks the rule that a modal is always followed by the base form of the verb, never a past-tense form, so it is ungrammatical outright.

• That leaves “might reach” — modal + base verb, matching the simple-past if-clause — as the only structurally consistent option.

Answer: might reach