Last visit was: 19 Jul 2024, 22:58 It is currently 19 Jul 2024, 22:58
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Posts: 953
Own Kudos [?]: 234 [0]
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 98
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 770
Own Kudos [?]: 695 [0]
Given Kudos: 1316
Location: India
Send PM
Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Milind39 wrote:
hello,

In q3 we are given that the radiation differs by a factor of 1000. How do we come to the conclusion that the radiation is lacking by 1000?
Cant it increase by 1000?


neetib wrote:
Please explain ques 3



Hi Milind39, neetib

Please refer the below reply by expert for Question 3:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/is-there-a-massive-black-hole-at-the-center-of-our-galaxy-the-milky-306222-20.html#p2396960


Let me know if you still have doubts.
Thanks.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2020
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 71
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Can anyone help with question # 3. Why is E not the correct answer. Thank you!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 770
Own Kudos [?]: 695 [0]
Given Kudos: 1316
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Niha01 wrote:
Can anyone help with question # 3. Why is E not the correct answer. Thank you!



Hi Niha01,

Please refer the below reply by expert GMAT Ninja for Question 3:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/is-there-a-massive-black-hole-at-the-center-of-our-galaxy-the-milky-306222-20.html#p2396960




Let me know if you still have doubts.
Thanks.
Current Student
Joined: 05 Nov 2020
Posts: 80
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 57
Location: Dominican Republic
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.91
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
4/4 in 6 mins, not a terrible passage imo
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Would be really grateful if someone could explain why 4d is wrong
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15125
Own Kudos [?]: 66741 [0]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Expert Reply
HansJK wrote:
Would be really grateful if someone could explain why 4d is wrong



4. The “widely held predictions” mentioned in line 25 are predictions about the

A. compactness of objects whose mass is millions of times the mass of our Sun
B. velocities of stars orbiting the galactic center
C. amount of matter swirling around the object at the center of the Milky Way
D. amount of matter falling into a theoretical central black hole
E. amount of energy that should be coming from a black hole at the center of the Milky Way



Scientists believe that the amount of
⠀⠀⠀ energy that escapes the black hole should be about
⠀⠀⠀ 10 percent of the matter's rest energy (the energy
⠀⠀⠀ equivalent of its mass according to the equation
⠀⠀⠀ E=mc^2). But when the energy coming from the
(25)  galactic center is compared to widely held predictions
⠀⠀⠀ based on how much matter should be falling into a
⠀⠀⠀ theoretical central black hole, there is a discrepancy
⠀⠀⠀ by a factor of a few thousand.



We are comparing energy coming from the centre with widely held predictions.

Widely held predictions on what? On how much energy should come from the centre based on how much matter should be falling into a central black home.

What do we find? We find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000.

The actual energy coming from the centre can be compared with predicted amount of energy only. Only those numbers will be comparable.
How is the prediction made? Based on how much matter should fall into a central black hole.
The idea is that if the centre is a black hole, X amount of matter will fall into it and that will make the centre emit Y amount of energy. When the actual energy being emitted is measured, we find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000. So then is it a black hole? We don't know.

Hence (E) is correct.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Jun 2019
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma


I am still confused between answers B and C in the following question.

2. According to the passage, the dynamical evidence referred to in lines 9–10 supports which of the following?

A. Recent assumptions about the velocities of stars
B. Widely held predictions about the amount of matter a black hole will engulf
C. The existence of an extremely dense object at the center of the Milky Way
D. The contention that too much energy is coming from the mass at the Milky Way's galactic center for that mass to be a black hole
E. The conclusion that a compact object of two to three million times the mass of our Sun is too dense to be anything but a black hole

the passage mentions the following
"This dynamical evidence, based on recently confirmed assumptions about the stars' velocities, argues for an extremely compact object with a mass two to three million times the mass of our Sun. Although according to current theory this makes the mass at the center of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black hole"

the underlined portion of the passage mentions the presence of an extremely dense object, reading the second sentence we understand that the dense object referred to previously is at the center of the galaxy ( Milky Way).

The bleu portion of the passage states that the theory mentioned previously supports the assertion that the dense object is too dense to be anything but a back hole. This supports answer E. But some people argue in the forum that "the lack of Energy" mentioned in the passage undermines the conclusion supported previously as a result answer E is wrong. however one can argue that the question is focused on the function of the word "the dynamical evidence" which clearly supports the conclusion mentioned in answer E.

Thank you
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15125
Own Kudos [?]: 66741 [1]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
danysaade wrote:
VeritasKarishma


I am still confused between answers B and C in the following question.

2. According to the passage, the dynamical evidence referred to in lines 9–10 supports which of the following?

A. Recent assumptions about the velocities of stars
B. Widely held predictions about the amount of matter a black hole will engulf
C. The existence of an extremely dense object at the center of the Milky Way
D. The contention that too much energy is coming from the mass at the Milky Way's galactic center for that mass to be a black hole
E. The conclusion that a compact object of two to three million times the mass of our Sun is too dense to be anything but a black hole

the passage mentions the following
"This dynamical evidence, based on recently confirmed assumptions about the stars' velocities, argues for an extremely compact object with a mass two to three million times the mass of our Sun. Although according to current theory this makes the mass at the center of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black hole"

the underlined portion of the passage mentions the presence of an extremely dense object, reading the second sentence we understand that the dense object referred to previously is at the center of the galaxy ( Milky Way).

The bleu portion of the passage states that the theory mentioned previously supports the assertion that the dense object is too dense to be anything but a back hole. This supports answer E. But some people argue in the forum that "the lack of Energy" mentioned in the passage undermines the conclusion supported previously as a result answer E is wrong. however one can argue that the question is focused on the function of the word "the dynamical evidence" which clearly supports the conclusion mentioned in answer E.

Thank you



Just as the Sun's mass can be determined... by the velocity at
⠀⠀⠀ which its planets orbit, the mass at the center of the
⠀⠀⠀ Milky Way can be revealed by the velocities of stars
⠀⠀⠀ and gas orbiting the galactic center. This dynamical
(10)  evidence
, based on recently confirmed assumptions
⠀⠀⠀ about the stars' velocities, argues for an extremely
⠀⠀⠀ compact object with a mass two to three million
⠀⠀⠀ times the mass of our Sun. Although according to
⠀⠀⠀ current theory this makes the mass at the center
(15)  of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black
⠀⠀⠀ hole, ...


What is the dynamical evidence? the velocities of stars and gas orbiting the galactic center.

What does it argue for? it argues for an extremely compact object with a mass two to three million times the mass of our Sun.

The evidence only tells us that at the centre we have an extremely dense object abt 2-3 million times the mass of Sun. What that object is, we do not know.

As per current theory (not as per our dynamical evidence), an object this dense can only be a black hole. Whether our current theory is correct or not, we do not know.

2. According to the passage, the dynamical evidence referred to in lines 9–10 supports which of the following?

C. The existence of an extremely dense object at the center of the Milky Way
Correct

E. The conclusion that a compact object of two to three million times the mass of our Sun is too dense to be anything but a black hole
The dynamical evidence does not support the conclusion that the object at the centre can be nothing but a black hole. It only supports that there is a v dense object at the centre. It is our current theory that says that such a dense object must be a black hole. Hence (E) is incorrect
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Hi GMATNinja and VeritasKarishma,
Can you please explain the meaning of phrase "anything but a black hole".
I inferred it as it could be anything but not black hole, which is different from your reasoning.
Could you please explain the same. Thanks
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4422
Own Kudos [?]: 31316 [4]
Given Kudos: 642
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Harman95 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja and VeritasKarishma,
Can you please explain the meaning of phrase "anything but a black hole".
I inferred it as it could be anything but not black hole, which is different from your reasoning.
Could you please explain the same. Thanks



Hey Harman95,

I came across this query today. Maybe I can offer some guidance on this one. Hope it helps!


Let us understand the nuance here with a simpler example:

Raymond is anything but healthy

This means: Raymond is not healthy. We can call him anything, but we cannot call him healthy.

Raymond exercises too regularly to be anything but healthy

This means: Raymond exercises so regularly that we cannot call him anything except healthy. i.e. Raymond is healthy.


Notice:
How the same phrase "anything but healthy" can be used in two different ways that convey completely opposite meanings. It depends on how the rest of the sentence is constructed ("exercises too regularly to be" makes all the difference!)

If this is clear, let us look at the sentence from the passage:

"this makes the mass at the center of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black hole"

What this does not mean: The object at the galactic center is anything except a black hole i.e. it is not a black hole

What it really means: the mass is so dense, it cannot be anything except a black hole i.e. it seems to be a black hole (based on the mass being so dense!)


Hope this helps!

Regards
Harsha
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Posts: 104
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 80
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
KarishmaB wrote:
HansJK wrote:
Would be really grateful if someone could explain why 4d is wrong



4. The “widely held predictions” mentioned in line 25 are predictions about the

A. compactness of objects whose mass is millions of times the mass of our Sun
B. velocities of stars orbiting the galactic center
C. amount of matter swirling around the object at the center of the Milky Way
D. amount of matter falling into a theoretical central black hole
E. amount of energy that should be coming from a black hole at the center of the Milky Way



Scientists believe that the amount of
⠀⠀⠀ energy that escapes the black hole should be about
⠀⠀⠀ 10 percent of the matter's rest energy (the energy
⠀⠀⠀ equivalent of its mass according to the equation
⠀⠀⠀ E=mc^2). But when the energy coming from the
(25)  galactic center is compared to widely held predictions
⠀⠀⠀ based on how much matter should be falling into a
⠀⠀⠀ theoretical central black hole, there is a discrepancy
⠀⠀⠀ by a factor of a few thousand.



We are comparing energy coming from the centre with widely held predictions.

Widely held predictions on what? On how much energy should come from the centre based on how much matter should be falling into a central black home.

What do we find? We find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000.

The actual energy coming from the centre can be compared with predicted amount of energy only. Only those numbers will be comparable.
How is the prediction made? Based on how much matter should fall into a central black hole.
The idea is that if the centre is a black hole, X amount of matter will fall into it and that will make the centre emit Y amount of energy. When the actual energy being emitted is measured, we find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000. So then is it a black hole? We don't know.

Hence (E) is correct.



Hi KarishmaB
That meant if there are any choices that mentioned about "amount of energy", it will be correct?
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15125
Own Kudos [?]: 66741 [0]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Teitsuya wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:
HansJK wrote:
Would be really grateful if someone could explain why 4d is wrong



4. The “widely held predictions” mentioned in line 25 are predictions about the

A. compactness of objects whose mass is millions of times the mass of our Sun
B. velocities of stars orbiting the galactic center
C. amount of matter swirling around the object at the center of the Milky Way
D. amount of matter falling into a theoretical central black hole
E. amount of energy that should be coming from a black hole at the center of the Milky Way



Scientists believe that the amount of
⠀⠀⠀ energy that escapes the black hole should be about
⠀⠀⠀ 10 percent of the matter's rest energy (the energy
⠀⠀⠀ equivalent of its mass according to the equation
⠀⠀⠀ E=mc^2). But when the energy coming from the
(25)  galactic center is compared to widely held predictions
⠀⠀⠀ based on how much matter should be falling into a
⠀⠀⠀ theoretical central black hole, there is a discrepancy
⠀⠀⠀ by a factor of a few thousand.



We are comparing energy coming from the centre with widely held predictions.

Widely held predictions on what? On how much energy should come from the centre based on how much matter should be falling into a central black home.

What do we find? We find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000.

The actual energy coming from the centre can be compared with predicted amount of energy only. Only those numbers will be comparable.
How is the prediction made? Based on how much matter should fall into a central black hole.
The idea is that if the centre is a black hole, X amount of matter will fall into it and that will make the centre emit Y amount of energy. When the actual energy being emitted is measured, we find that there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few 1000. So then is it a black hole? We don't know.

Hence (E) is correct.



Hi KarishmaB
That meant if there are any choices that mentioned about "amount of energy", it will be correct?



Teitsuya - The option mentioning "amount of energy coming from the galactic center" will be correct, not say "amount of energy coming from the the solar system" etc.
This is so because we are comparing "actual amount of energy coming from galactic centre" with its predicted value.
Since only option (E) talks about amount of energy, we don't need to worry. We know it must mention the correct amount of energy since no other option can be correct.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 90
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [1]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
1
Kudos
KarishmaB GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep

1. What is the term 'relative' referring to? Relative in terms of "energy released relative to energy absorbed" or "energy released actually relative to the predicted release of energy"? How did you decide which one does it imply?

2. I am not clear on what the comparison is established between and how is that determined. There are 2 cases that can arise when we say 'relative' lack of energy. How do we know which one is intended:
a. Same energy in case of assumption and actual but less is being released in actual relative to absorbed energy. Ex. E=1000 and assumed release =10%=100 but actual =5%=50
b. In case of actual, energy is less,i.e, E=500 but in case of assumed, energy is higher, i.e, E =1000 and in both case the amount released =10% thus Actual release= 50 and Assumed release = 100. Here less energy is released relative to assumption.

In both cases actual < assumed but in the latter less is being released purely because less energy is being absorbed so firstly, how is that a problem? Secondly, in this case, probem would be solved by saying "Current assumptions about how much matter a black hole would engulf proved to be several thousand times too high" whereas, in the former case, the correct answer would be something like "Current assumptions about how much energy is released proved to be several thousand times too high". Both are different but seem plausible so how did you choose that we should choose to interpret it by case b?

In the above context is ParikshitAgrawal 's numerical explanation correct?

ParikshitAgrawal wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Since I can see that the only debatable question here is 3 (Diya52 , gmat1393 , legendinthewomb ), I will straight away reason out the options of Q3.

Pertinent lines from the passage to answer the question:
Although according to current theory this makes the mass at the center of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black hole, the relative lack of energy radiating from the galactic center presents a serious problem. A black hole's gravity attracts surrounding matter, which swirls around the black hole, emitting some energy as it is engulfed. Scientists believe that the amount of energy that escapes the black hole should be about 10 percent of the matter's rest energy.

Understanding:
The author presents an 'evidence' that the mass of the galaxy's center is too dense and amount of energy radiating out is less than expected. As this is clearly stated as evidence, this cannot be refuted or argued. Furthermore, they provide a cause behind any radiation of energy, which is a proportional amount of matter being engulfed by galaxy's center. From this, we can easily infer that they had assumed that the mass being engulfed is way much higher.

Working for assumption:
For clear visualization, let us say that the mass engulfed by the galaxy's center which was assumed by the scientists was 1000 Kgs. Thus, the energy radiation must be nearly equal to the energy of the mass of 10Kgs (say 10X). But they could evidence only proportional to 5 Kgs (say 5X). Thus, there is a lack of energy radiations. Hence, what if the assumed engulfed mass was only 500 Kgs, then the realised values would hold true.

Now, let's move to the answer choices.

A) This is exactly matching our prethinking.
B) This is complete opposite of our answer.
(C) and (D) are completely wrong as the mass of galaxy's center is also accounted for.
E) This is a tricky option too. Many would opt for this that what if the energy for a proportion of particular mass of kgs is higher. However, you should pay attention to what the evidence is indicating. THE ENERGY RADIATED OUT OF THE GALAXY's CENTER WOULD STILL BE LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE EXPECTING. Here, since there is no indication on amount of mass being engulfed, lets assume energy emitted is 50% of the energy of the mass being engulfed. Then per this option, and per our previous 'working for assumption', for 5X energy emissions observed, the mass being engulfed would be 10 Kgs. But does this give us an explanation to low energy radiation- NO.

Hence, A is the correct choice.

Hope this helps !!

Regards,
Parikshit
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2022
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
shridhar786 wrote:
NoMatterWhat wrote:
UPS67 wrote:
I have issue with the explanation of Question 2.

As you mentioned "However, if it were discovered that the matter engulfed were several thousand times less than previously estimated, the relatively low level of radiated energy observed would no longer seem at odds with the existence of the hypothesized black hole."

A. Current assumptions about how much matter a black hole would engulf proved to be several thousand times too high.
B. Current assumptions about how much matter a black hole would engulf proved to be a few thousand times too low.

So option A is opposite and option B fits in.
Hence, could you please check the option and correct me if my understanding is wrong.



I m with you, I checked on Option B too.....Please someone help us out


I am with both of you
can anyone help us out with question number 3



Please note the usage of the word 'Proved'. There is a discrepancy between what was discovered and what was the widely held belief. If the widely held belief proved to be thousand times too high, the discrepancy would be resolved.

Take the example below:

Energy = 100
Energy emitted from the black hole = 10% * 100 = 10

Widely held belief of energy emitted from the black hold = 10,000

If the widely held belief was proved to be several thousand times too high, the new widely held belief of energy to be emitted = 10 (which is inline with the evidence)

Hence, ans is A. I had initially selected Ans B only to later realize that I had misread the answer choice.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6984
Own Kudos [?]: 64537 [0]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Expert Reply
ag153 wrote:
KarishmaB GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep

1. What is the term 'relative' referring to? Relative in terms of "energy released relative to energy absorbed" or "energy released actually relative to the predicted release of energy"? How did you decide which one does it imply?

2. I am not clear on what the comparison is established between and how is that determined. There are 2 cases that can arise when we say 'relative' lack of energy. How do we know which one is intended:
a. Same energy in case of assumption and actual but less is being released in actual relative to absorbed energy. Ex. E=1000 and assumed release =10%=100 but actual =5%=50
b. In case of actual, energy is less,i.e, E=500 but in case of assumed, energy is higher, i.e, E =1000 and in both case the amount released =10% thus Actual release= 50 and Assumed release = 100. Here less energy is released relative to assumption.

In both cases actual < assumed but in the latter less is being released purely because less energy is being absorbed so firstly, how is that a problem? Secondly, in this case, probem would be solved by saying "Current assumptions about how much matter a black hole would engulf proved to be several thousand times too high" whereas, in the former case, the correct answer would be something like "Current assumptions about how much energy is released proved to be several thousand times too high". Both are different but seem plausible so how did you choose that we should choose to interpret it by case b?

In the above context is ParikshitAgrawal 's numerical explanation correct?

ParikshitAgrawal wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Since I can see that the only debatable question here is 3 (Diya52 , gmat1393 , legendinthewomb ), I will straight away reason out the options of Q3.

Pertinent lines from the passage to answer the question:
Although according to current theory this makes the mass at the center of the galaxy too dense to be anything but a black hole, the relative lack of energy radiating from the galactic center presents a serious problem. A black hole's gravity attracts surrounding matter, which swirls around the black hole, emitting some energy as it is engulfed. Scientists believe that the amount of energy that escapes the black hole should be about 10 percent of the matter's rest energy.

Understanding:
The author presents an 'evidence' that the mass of the galaxy's center is too dense and amount of energy radiating out is less than expected. As this is clearly stated as evidence, this cannot be refuted or argued. Furthermore, they provide a cause behind any radiation of energy, which is a proportional amount of matter being engulfed by galaxy's center. From this, we can easily infer that they had assumed that the mass being engulfed is way much higher.

Working for assumption:
For clear visualization, let us say that the mass engulfed by the galaxy's center which was assumed by the scientists was 1000 Kgs. Thus, the energy radiation must be nearly equal to the energy of the mass of 10Kgs (say 10X). But they could evidence only proportional to 5 Kgs (say 5X). Thus, there is a lack of energy radiations. Hence, what if the assumed engulfed mass was only 500 Kgs, then the realised values would hold true.

Now, let's move to the answer choices.

A) This is exactly matching our prethinking.
B) This is complete opposite of our answer.
(C) and (D) are completely wrong as the mass of galaxy's center is also accounted for.
E) This is a tricky option too. Many would opt for this that what if the energy for a proportion of particular mass of kgs is higher. However, you should pay attention to what the evidence is indicating. THE ENERGY RADIATED OUT OF THE GALAXY's CENTER WOULD STILL BE LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE EXPECTING. Here, since there is no indication on amount of mass being engulfed, lets assume energy emitted is 50% of the energy of the mass being engulfed. Then per this option, and per our previous 'working for assumption', for 5X energy emissions observed, the mass being engulfed would be 10 Kgs. But does this give us an explanation to low energy radiation- NO.

Hence, A is the correct choice.

Hope this helps !!

Regards,
Parikshit

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but the meaning of "relative lack of energy radiating from the galactic center" becomes clear as you read through the second half of the passage.

We learn that black holes emit some energy as matter gets sucked in. The amount of energy SHOULD be about 10% of the matter's rest energy. So, we can predict the amount of energy that should be emitted.

Unfortunately, these predictions are way off (by a factor of a few thousand!). Because we already know that there is a relative lack of energy, we know that the observed data is way lower than the prediction.

I hope that helps a bit!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jul 2021
Posts: 231
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 29
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
Experts,

For Q3, the statement in passage says " there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few thousand."

So, it does not confirm that the discrepancy is an increase of decrease from desired value.

Hence only clue to get a correct answer for Q3 is " factor of few thousand" which is stated in B. Hence B should be correct.

Kindly comment.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6984
Own Kudos [?]: 64537 [1]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
thakurarun85 wrote:
Experts,

For Q3, the statement in passage says " there is a discrepancy by a factor of a few thousand."

So, it does not confirm that the discrepancy is an increase of decrease from desired value.

Hence only clue to get a correct answer for Q3 is " factor of few thousand" which is stated in B. Hence B should be correct.

Kindly comment.

Did you see this post? Check it out and let us know if you have further questions.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14065 posts