<p>Why is the answer B?</p>
<p>Many jazz enthusiasts would have to admit that their having unjustly overlooked the music of Bennie Nawahi, who popularized the Hawaiian steel guitar sound in the early 1930's. No error.</p>
<p>Answer: B. their having</p>
<p>it should be “they have” </p>
<p>i don’t think you can say their having because their is possessive? idk what the exact error is, sry.</p>
<p>You have to have a possessive pronoun before a gerund (noun-ing).</p>
<p>what tense is their having?</p>
<p>O.O ohhh… past tense</p>
<p>How is “their having” past tense?</p>
<p>By the way, the correct answer should be “they had.”</p>
<p>It is not past tense. I meant that the sentence is past tense and “their having” is not.</p>
<p>The problem here is that the sentence, as it is, is not complete. The jazz enthusiasts admit that their having overlooked music of Bennie…what? That their having overlooked Bennie’s music is careless? A mistake? You can have a possessive pronoun before a gerund (to use as a noun), but in this case, that would make the sentence incomplete. </p>
<p>However, if you change the word “that” to “to,” then the sentence would be correct (the enthusiasts would have to admit to blah blah blah…), but “that” is not underlined, so you have to change B. </p>
<p>I hope my explanation helps.</p>
<p>I don’t think the answer is “they had” because “would have” is present (not present perfect, because “have” in this case is used as the main verb, as in “have to do something”). Therefore, the correct answer should be “they have” (I think).</p>
<p>okokok. i got it: “their having” is a noun. but in its place you need a verb, which is what sunpenguin was saying</p>
<p>also, it should be “they have” because that means that it has been happening and continues to happen in the present. “they had” would mean that it happened and is no longer happening.</p>
<p>Yeah it cant be their having cause it’s a noun. Their having of that stuff did what? So you have to make their having into a verb to complete the idea. They have seems best.</p>
<p>But the action of overlooking occurred before the act of admitting, so you use ‘had.’ Or perhaps the overlooking is happening at the same time? I interpreted it as the jazz enthusiasts aren’t currently overlooking, but that they used to overlook, and now they have to admit it.</p>
<p>the subject is many jazz enthusiasts, so it’s not all jazz enthusiasts.</p>
<p>SunPenguin: How is “would have” preset"? Isn’t “would” the past tense of “will”?</p>
<p>dchow- Oh wow, you’re right. They overlooked before so it’s they had. My mistake.</p>
<p>dchow08: “overlook” is in a PERFECT tense, which already indicates that the action “overlook” is ALREADY DONE by the time they “admit”.
The tense of “have overlooked”/“had overlooked” ONLY depend on the tense of the main verb “admit”. If the action “admit” happens in the past, then “overlook” should be PAST perfect , ie, “had overlooked”; if “admit” happens in the present, “overlook” should be PRESENT perfect, ie, “have overlooked”</p>
<p>Wavvy:</p>
<p>“The tense of “have overlooked”/“had overlooked” ONLY depend on the tense of the main verb “admit””</p>
<p>No. The question revolves around “would have to admit.” </p>
<p>“If the action “admit” happens in the past, then “overlook” should be PAST perfect , ie, “had overlooked”;”</p>
<p>Again, the sentence states that the jazz enthusiasts would have to admit. It doesn’t say that the jazz enthusiasts admit or admitted.</p>
<p>lol Wavvy, to admit is just an infinitive, if u’re looking at this as a tense, i wouldn’t be surprised if u get low score in writing.</p>
<p>There is no main verb.</p>