 Solution

Retain the same regional-background assumption as in part (b). The northern pluton is about $2.0\mathrm{km}$ thick beneath the station near the northern trough, while its gravity anomaly is about $-114\mathrm{mGal}$. Its anomaly relative to the greenstone maximum is approximately $-14\mathrm{mGal}$. Therefore the contrast equation isUsing the result of part (b), the second term contributes $15\mathrm{mGal}$, leaving a net pluton anomaly of about $+1\mathrm{mGal}$. Hence ${\rho }_{\mathrm{gr}}\simeq 2680\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, effectively close to the host-rock density at the precision of this diagram.

The apparent trough is strongly negative relative to the greenstone belt, but hardly negative relative to the southern host-rock background. If a northward regional trend is intended instead, it must be stated: in general,with both gravity values in milligals. For example, a northern background of $-109\mathrm{mGal}$ would give ${\rho }_{\mathrm{gr}}\simeq 2610\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, but the same reference would also change part (b). No regional curve is explicitly identified in the supplied figure, so the numerical result must retain its reference-field assumption. This is the geological nonuniqueness of geophysical inversion of potential-field interpretation, rather than a reason to force a presumed textbook granite density onto the plot.