Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
31 May 2023, 01:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Experts,
GMATNinja KarishmaB
I went through all the explanation but still have few doubts.
For Q1, Why E is incorrect?
E. present evidence that calls into question certain assumptions of a current theory
Author does present evidence about energy calculation (amount of energy emitted) to question/doubt
a) the presence of black hole based on mass calculation b) assumption in current theory to calculate the mass
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!
GMATNinja KarishmaB
I went through all the explanation but still have few doubts.
For Q1, Why E is incorrect?
E. present evidence that calls into question certain assumptions of a current theory
Author does present evidence about energy calculation (amount of energy emitted) to question/doubt
a) the presence of black hole based on mass calculation b) assumption in current theory to calculate the mass
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!
05 Jul 2023, 13:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
Sneha2021
As you suggest, this passage presents evidence which calls into question the theory of a black hole at the center of the milky way. So why is (E) incorrect?
Quote:
To answer that, let's try to nail down the author's goal in writing this passage.
The author starts by raising a question (i.e. is there a black hole at the center of the milky way?). He or she then points out that the existing evidence is inconclusive. The rest of the passage is dedicated to supporting this last assertion - namely that the evidence is inconclusive. More specifically, the rest of the passage tells us that some evidence supports the the idea of a black hole, and some does not.
Admittedly, that's a fairly boring purpose -- to argue that the existing evidence on a certain question is inconclusive. But apparently, that's the author's main goal here.
Back to (E): the author certainly does present evidence against a theory. But that's not exactly the primary purpose. Rather, the author's main goal is to show why the evidence regarding a black hole in the center of the milky way is inconclusive. For that reason, (E) is incorrect.
05 Jul 2023, 13:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 3
Sneha2021
Quote:
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!
