Thanks for explanation, Mr. David.
Hi, Islam Mohamed,
"Explanation" is a count noun, so you need to use "the" before it in this case.
" We use may/might + have+ past participle to talk about possible events in the past, present and future" " Advanced grammar in use third edition" P.34 Section E.
Ex. " His maths might have improved by the time the exam comes round."
I find that example extremely awkward, and not just because American speakers never use "maths" to refer to math; I find its use of "might have improved" to be truly terrible and would not recommend that sentence to anyone, precisely because "might have V-ed" has a strong tendency to refer to the past, as I have already explained to you. I did NOT say that it was impossible for it not to do so.
Why not might have lived works here.
That isn't a grammatical question. When did you begin studying English? You should have said: "Why doesn't 'might have lived' work here?"
I totally agree might be living is best as it expresses a trend in the not too distant future.
When you refer to words or phrases as words or phrases, you need to put them in quotation marks or italics (or colored lettering or bold lettering) -- something to indicate that you are not using the words you are referring to, but just referring to the words or phrases as words or phrases.
"Might be living" need not refer to the "not too distant future." I was using it to refer to the end of the present century, which is eighty years away. We can even say, "People might be living on Mars one thousand years from now." That is hardly the near future!
But may you give me stronger reasons to omit might have lived as a probable answer?
No, I have already given you an excellent reason to omit "might have lived." The fact that you, who speak very little English, were able to find a quote with an extremely awkward example from some ESL book that is comfortable with using "might have V-ed" to refer to the future does not in any way change my mind.