Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 10:34 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 10:34
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
avatar
HansJK
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Last visit: 30 Jun 2021
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Given Kudos: 42
Posts: 25
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,373
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
danysaade
Joined: 01 Jun 2019
Last visit: 17 Oct 2021
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
79,373
 [2]
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,373
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
danysaade
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
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
33,428
 [5]
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,428
 [5]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Harman95
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
User avatar
Teitsuya
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Last visit: 11 Jun 2024
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 80
Posts: 96
Kudos: 35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
HansJK
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?
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,438
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 484
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,438
Kudos: 79,373
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Teitsuya
KarishmaB
HansJK
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.
avatar
ag153
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Last visit: 15 May 2022
Posts: 80
Own Kudos:
46
 [1]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.69
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
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
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,129
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,792
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ag153
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
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!
User avatar
Sneha2021
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 522
Location: India
Posts: 294
Kudos: 38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,792
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,129
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,792
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Question 1


Sneha2021
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

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:
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

E. present evidence that calls into question certain assumptions of a current theory
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.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,792
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,129
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,792
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Question 3


Sneha2021

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!
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,428
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Sneha2021,

Let me address both your doubts.

Question 1: Why is D correct (and not E)?

The passage is structured around one central question: 'Is there a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way?' It then presents evidence FOR the black hole (dynamical evidence of high-speed orbital motion) and evidence AGAINST it (X-ray and radio emissions are 'far below widely held predictions'). The passage ends without resolving this tension — it simply lays out both sides of the contradiction.

This is exactly what D captures: 'explain why a certain issue remains unresolved.' The 'issue' is whether a massive black hole exists at the galactic center. It remains unresolved because the dynamical evidence says yes, but the emission data says the numbers don't add up.

Choice E (a 'describe' option) likely captures only one aspect of the passage — perhaps describing the evidence or the black hole itself. But the PRIMARY purpose isn't merely to describe something; it's to explain a specific scientific puzzle and why it hasn't been settled. Key Insight: The passage has an argumentative structure (evidence vs. counter-evidence), not just a descriptive one. That's the key distinction.

Question 3: Why is A correct?

The 'serious problem' is this: detected X-ray and radio emissions are 'far below widely held predictions about how much energy a black hole should radiate as it engulfs surrounding matter.' In other words, scientists predicted X amount of energy, but they're detecting far less than X.

Think about what drives those predictions. Scientists estimate how much matter a black hole would engulf, then calculate how much energy that engulfing process should produce. If the starting assumption — how much matter gets engulfed — were 'several thousand times too high,' then the predicted energy output would also drop by several thousand times. That would bring the predictions DOWN to match the actual low emissions detected, and the discrepancy (the 'serious problem') would disappear.

Choice E (a placeholder here, but likely involving something unrelated to bridging this specific gap between predicted and observed emissions) probably doesn't directly address the core mismatch. Key Insight for Q3: to solve the problem, you need to explain why predictions were too HIGH or why actual emissions appear too LOW. Answer A does exactly that — it lowers the predictions by correcting the input assumption about matter engulfed.

Answer: D
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
495 posts
358 posts