Question 3
Sneha2021 wrote:
For Q3,
A. Current assumptions about how much matter a black hole would engulf proved to be several thousand times too high.
E. Matter being engulfed by a black hole radiated far more energy than is currently assumed.
In A, We are saying that current assumption is too high and if we resolve it, we can get away with "serious problem" about lack of energy radiating. We need to consider opposite case of what is told in A.
In E, To get away with the serious problem, we need to consider opposite of what E is saying. In short, we need to assume that matter radiated less energy to match with the actual radiating energy.
Why E is incorrect then?
Isn't meaning of E is actual energy is higher than scientist assumed? How do I know it is talking about assumed energy?
Thank you for your help!
Quote:
3. The “serious problem” referred to in line 17 could be solved if which of the following were true?
E. Matter being engulfed by a black hole radiated far more energy than is currently assumed.
As you suggest, if scientists were wrong about the energy radiated by the galactic center of the milky way, that could solve the "serious problem." More specifically, if the actual energy were a few thousand times higher than the energy measured by scientists, that would fix the issue.
But that's not exactly what (E) is saying. In fact, (E) is talking about the energy radiated by "
a black hole." In other words, it's talking about black holes in
general. Put another way, it's telling us that black holes in general actually radiate far more energy that currently thought (i.e. currently assumed).
To solve the "serious problem," on the other hand, we'd need to be told that the "galactic center"
itself is radiating a thousand times more energy than scientists have determined. In other words, we'd need information about the specifics of the milky way center, not black holes in general.
In fact, if black holes in general radiated more energy than currently thought, that would make the "serious problem" even worse. On the one hand, the evidence tells us that the energy radiated is a thousand times less than it should be, if there really were a black hole. On the other, (E) tells us that the amount of energy a black hole should radiate is ACTUALLY a thousand times higher than what is currently thought. If that were the case, the discrepancy between the amount of energy the scientists measured and what it should be would be even larger.
Overall, since (E) fails to solve the "serious problem" (and actually makes it worse), we can reject it.
I hope that helps!
close
31 May 2023, 01:49
