After evidence

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

After evidence

by akhpad » Sun May 09, 2010 2:12 am
After evidence was obtained in the 1920s that
the universe is expanding, it became reasonable
to ask: Will the universe continue to expand
indefinitely, or is there enough mass in it for the
mutual attraction of its constituents to bring this
expansion to a halt? It can be calculated that
the critical density of matter needed to brake the
expansion and "close" the universe is equivalent
to three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But the
density of the observable universe-luminous matter
in the form of galaxies-comes to only a fraction
of this. If the expansion of the universe is to stop,
there must be enough invisible matter in the
universe to exceed the luminous matter in density
by a factor of roughly 70.

Our contribution to the search for this "missing
matter" has been to study the rotational velocity
of galaxies at various distances from their center
of rotation. It has been known for some time that
outside the bright nucleus of a typical spiral galaxy
luminosity falls off rapidly with distance from the
center. If luminosity were a true indicator of mass,
most of the mass would be concentrated toward
the center. Outside the nucleus the rotational
velocity would decrease geometrically with distance
from the center, in conformity with Kepler's law.
Instead we have found that the rotational velocity
in spiral galaxies either remains constant with
increasing distance from the center or increases
slightly. This unexpected result indicates that the
falloff in luminous mass with distance from the
center is balanced by an increase in nonluminous
mass.

Our findings suggest that as much as 90
percent of the mass of the universe is not radiating
at any wavelength with enough intensity to be
detected on the Earth
. Such dark matter could be
in the form of extremely dim stars of low mass,
of large planets like Jupiter, or of black holes,
either small or massive. While it has not yet been
determined whether this mass is sufficient to
close the universe, some physicists consider it
significant that estimates are converging on the
critical value.

Q1
The authors' suggestion that "as much as 90 percent of the mass of the universe is not radiating at any wavelength with enough intensity to be detected on the Earth" (lines 34-37) would be most weakened if which of the following were discovered to be true?

(A) Spiral galaxies are less common than types of galaxies that contain little nonluminous matter.
(B) Luminous and nonluminous matter are composed of the same basic elements.
(C) The bright nucleus of a typical spiral galaxy also contains some nonluminous matter.
(D) The density of the observable universe is greater than most previous estimates have suggested.
(E) Some galaxies do not rotate or rotate too slowly for their rotational velocity to be measured.

OA: A; I could not understand why this is correct.

Q2
It can be inferred from information presented in the passage that if the density of the universe were equivalent to significantly less than three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, which of the following would be true as a consequence?
(A) Luminosity would be a true indicator of mass.
(B) Different regions in spiral galaxies would rotate at the same velocity.
(C) The universe would continue to expand indefinitely.
(D) The density of the invisible matter in the universe would have to be more than 70 times the density of the luminous matter.
(E) More of the invisible matter in spiral galaxies would have to be located in their nuclei than in their outer regions.

OA: C
This question is based on first paragraph.
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:06 am
Anybody would like to try this.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 199 times
Followed by:85 members
GMAT Score:750

by tpr-becky » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:32 am
Question 1 - in order to weaken an argument you have to find the premise for that argument - here the author uses the facts about spiral galaxies - the fact that their spin does not change as you get further from the center (where there is less luminous mass) and therefore there must be dark mass that takes up the difference. Then in the next paragraph he uses this information to support the fact that over 90% of the dark matter is not detected.

This type of reasoning is akin to saying that becuase we have found that black widow spiders are extremely poisonous then most of the spiders are also extremely poisonous - this isn't true unless most of the spiders in the world are Black widows. similarly the above argument rests on the fact that spiral galaxies make up enough of the univers to make a blanket stament. This is why A weakens it - becuase if Spiral galaxies less common than other galaxies that don't have the same properties then you can't make that conclusion.

Question 2. The passage sais "the critical density of matter needed to brake the expansion ... is equavent to 3 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter" Therefore you can infer that if you have less than that, then you have less than teh critical density which means that the universe will not stop (brake). Thus C is the best answer.
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:11 pm
Thanks Becky

I am happy to see your explanation for Q1 as it is bit tougher. It took some time to understand.

Q2 is easy.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:08 am
Hi Becky,

Pls help me with this:

The primary purpose of the passage is:
a) defending a controversial approach
b) criticizing an accepted view
c) summarizing research findings
d) contrasting competing theories
e) describing an innovative technique

[spoiler]OA - C; but confused btn C & E. Passage talks about a newer approch to check whether universe will continue to expand or stop. To do so, authors talk about their experiment or research. I feel we can call this research a newer way of research using newer thought/techniques. Secondly, passage is descriptive. Even then why E is not correct!

'findings' have been mentioned a number of times in passage while 'technique' never mentioned - is tht the reason for elimnating E. Pls help[/spoiler]

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:03 pm

by mauro_herrada » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:09 am
Hi, I do not agree with the answer for Q2. Even though it appears to be the right answer, it is not true that "The universe would continue to expand indefinitely" According to the passage it will stop when it reaches the stated limit. However I agree that it is the best answer following POE

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:34 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Warlock007 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:39 am
tpr-becky wrote:Question 1 - in order to weaken an argument you have to find the premise for that argument - here the author uses the facts about spiral galaxies - the fact that their spin does not change as you get further from the center (where there is less luminous mass) and therefore there must be dark mass that takes up the difference. Then in the next paragraph he uses this information to support the fact that over 90% of the dark matter is not detected.

This type of reasoning is akin to saying that becuase we have found that black widow spiders are extremely poisonous then most of the spiders are also extremely poisonous - this isn't true unless most of the spiders in the world are Black widows. similarly the above argument rests on the fact that spiral galaxies make up enough of the univers to make a blanket stament. This is why A weakens it - becuase if Spiral galaxies less common than other galaxies that don't have the same properties then you can't make that conclusion.

Question 2. The passage sais "the critical density of matter needed to brake the expansion ... is equavent to 3 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter" Therefore you can infer that if you have less than that, then you have less than teh critical density which means that the universe will not stop (brake). Thus C is the best answer.
Dear Becky
I could not understand the meaning of
1. Brake the expansion (is it the same as to cut off the expansion)
2. "Close"
please explain

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:34 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Warlock007 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:42 am
pnk wrote:Hi Becky,

Pls help me with this:

The primary purpose of the passage is:
a) defending a controversial approach
b) criticizing an accepted view
c) summarizing research findings
d) contrasting competing theories
e) describing an innovative technique

[spoiler]OA - C; but confused btn C & E. Passage talks about a newer approch to check whether universe will continue to expand or stop. To do so, authors talk about their experiment or research. I feel we can call this research a newer way of research using newer thought/techniques. Secondly, passage is descriptive. Even then why E is not correct!

'findings' have been mentioned a number of times in passage while 'technique' never mentioned - is tht the reason for elimnating E. Pls help[/spoiler]
Dear pnk

the very first tip of my approach to solve RC is that
"DO NOT THINK BEYOND WHAT IS STATED" :idea: :idea:
technique has to be a technique only
approach can not be called technique

so simply eliminate E over C

hope it helps :) :)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:37 am
pnk wrote:Hi Becky,

Pls help me with this:

The primary purpose of the passage is:
a) defending a controversial approach
b) criticizing an accepted view
c) summarizing research findings
d) contrasting competing theories
e) describing an innovative technique

[spoiler]OA - C; but confused btn C & E. Passage talks about a newer approch to check whether universe will continue to expand or stop. To do so, authors talk about their experiment or research. I feel we can call this research a newer way of research using newer thought/techniques. Secondly, passage is descriptive. Even then why E is not correct!

'findings' have been mentioned a number of times in passage while 'technique' never mentioned - is tht the reason for elimnating E. Pls help[/spoiler]
First of all Passage does not talk about a technique and even if you felt so NOWHERE it is mentioned that technique is INNOVATIVE. Be wary of words, NEW & INNOVATIVE have wide difference in meaning.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)