Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 14:18 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 14:18
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
User avatar
GMATinsight
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 6,835
Own Kudos:
16,349
 [71]
Given Kudos: 128
Status:GMAT/GRE Tutor l Admission Consultant l On-Demand Course creator
Location: India
GMAT: QUANT+DI EXPERT
Schools: IIM (A) ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V41
WE:Education (Education)
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: IIM (A) ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V41
Posts: 6,835
Kudos: 16,349
 [71]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
65
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 11,238
Own Kudos:
43,696
 [18]
Given Kudos: 335
Status:Math and DI Expert
Location: India
Concentration: Human Resources, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Posts: 11,238
Kudos: 43,696
 [18]
18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Oppenheimer1945
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Last visit: 14 Nov 2025
Posts: 784
Own Kudos:
639
 [16]
Given Kudos: 223
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80
GPA: 7.81
15
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
GMATinsight
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 6,835
Own Kudos:
16,349
 [2]
Given Kudos: 128
Status:GMAT/GRE Tutor l Admission Consultant l On-Demand Course creator
Location: India
GMAT: QUANT+DI EXPERT
Schools: IIM (A) ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V41
WE:Education (Education)
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: IIM (A) ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V41
Posts: 6,835
Kudos: 16,349
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATinsight
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted to less than 2 hours per day engaging with social media. Would a significant number of teens aged 10 to 15 years get an overall developmental or health benefit from such a restriction?

(1) A peer-reviewed study indicates a 23% increase in the incidence of chronic anxiety or depression among teenagers aged 10 to 15 years who average 2 or more hours per day engaging with social media.

(2) Certain kinds of engagement with social media averaging 2 or more hours per day by teenagers aged 10 to 15 years lead, in about 28% of cases, to meaningful friendships and social and emotional learning, both of which are valuable for development at those ages.

­Source: GMAT OG 2024-25 (Quant Review)­
­OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONInference

(1) This statement cites a study that found an association between social-media use by teenagers 10 to 15 years and an increase in the incidence of chronic anxiety or depression among 23% of the minors observed in the study. A key word here is association: It should be noted that this does not prove a cause-effect relationship, even if the study could motivate further investigation to see whether a causal mechanism could be identified. Even if a causal mechanism were identified, it could turn out that the use of social media was at least in part an effect of chronic anxiety or depression: Some teenagers might resort to social media use as a kind of escape mechanism. We should conclude that the information provided (even if the validity of the study is assumed) does not provide sufficient information to show definitively that the proposed restriction would result in developmental or health benefits for minors aged 10 to 15 years. The conclusion is that (1) is not sufficient alone; NOT sufficient.

(2) This statement indicates that use of social media by teens aged 10 to 15 years results in significant developmental benefits for 28% of teens in that age group. In other words, it indicates that social-media use by these teens causally contributes to a developmentally valuable effect. This implies that restriction of their social media use risks depriving a significant number of teens of the benefits resulting from their social-media use. So we can conclude that (2) is sufficient alone to provide a negative answer to the question posed; SUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is B; statement 2 alone is sufficient.
User avatar
DrAnkita91
Joined: 29 Aug 2022
Last visit: 09 Nov 2025
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
21
 [4]
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 61
Kudos: 21
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
how can 28% percent of teens means significant number of teens? how can we decide that? please can anybody help?
User avatar
sayan640
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,180
Own Kudos:
813
 [1]
Given Kudos: 783
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Products:
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Posts: 1,180
Kudos: 813
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyMurray KarishmaB chetan2u I chose E here. The answer turned out to be B. Can you please help ?
User avatar
sayan640
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,180
Own Kudos:
813
 [1]
Given Kudos: 783
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Products:
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Posts: 1,180
Kudos: 813
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Significant means greater than 50 percent ..right ? How come 28% percent be a significant number ?
chetan2u marty ?
User avatar
sayan640
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,180
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 783
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Products:
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Posts: 1,180
Kudos: 813
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the answer to the following question can be E , why cant the same logic be followed in this case ? It left me totally confused.
Link :- https://gmatclub.com/forum/is-there-a-c ... 30179.html
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,980
 [8]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,980
 [8]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
sayan640
MartyMurray KarishmaB chetan2u I chose E here. The answer turned out to be B. Can you please help ?
­
Can't help. I would have marked (E) too.

Statement 2 gives us an advantage - aspects valuable for development at those ages.
Does it imply an "overall developmental or health benefit"? Not necessary. What if in addition to these advantages, it causes decrease in confidence and fear of loneliness? Did the overall developmental or health benefit? We cannot say. 

Note that statement 1 gives a correlation only so that is certainly irrelevant. 
User avatar
Riri15
Joined: 07 Feb 2021
Last visit: 18 Apr 2025
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 9
Products:
Posts: 35
Kudos: 10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­How is 28% a significant number? 72% might still benefit with overall development, so even B is not sufficient to ans the question
User avatar
nosaj
Joined: 01 Nov 2023
Last visit: 12 Jul 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
30
 [7]
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 53
Kudos: 30
 [7]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Comes up as 'Easy' in the testbank too...
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 131
Own Kudos:
71
 [1]
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 131
Kudos: 71
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Wrong on so many levels!
- What is significant? It is so vague to convert this in mathematical terms - how can 28% be significant?
- Option B mentions data only on certain kind of engagements but the conclusion in stimulus is just engagements
- It talks about a benefit to 28% people but is it net benefit? What about the issues these people faced?

This should be an AWA Q and we should have been asked to find flaws. What's the point of learning CR if we have to choose answer choices like simpleton

MartyMurray
User avatar
Nihal_Abdurahiman
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Last visit: 04 Nov 2025
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q76 V81 DI82
GPA: 3.13
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q76 V81 DI82
Posts: 15
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There is no word association in the original statement. And I think anything effecting 23% of a population is a very significant number in real life terms, although some might argue otherwise.
GMATinsight
GMATinsight
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted to less than 2 hours per day engaging with social media. Would a significant number of teens aged 10 to 15 years get an overall developmental or health benefit from such a restriction?

(1) A peer-reviewed study indicates a 23% increase in the incidence of chronic anxiety or depression among teenagers aged 10 to 15 years who average 2 or more hours per day engaging with social media.

(2) Certain kinds of engagement with social media averaging 2 or more hours per day by teenagers aged 10 to 15 years lead, in about 28% of cases, to meaningful friendships and social and emotional learning, both of which are valuable for development at those ages.

­Source: GMAT OG 2024-25 (Quant Review)­
­OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONInference

(1) This statement cites a study that found an association between social-media use by teenagers 10 to 15 years and an increase in the incidence of chronic anxiety or depression among 23% of the minors observed in the study. A key word here is association: It should be noted that this does not prove a cause-effect relationship, even if the study could motivate further investigation to see whether a causal mechanism could be identified. Even if a causal mechanism were identified, it could turn out that the use of social media was at least in part an effect of chronic anxiety or depression: Some teenagers might resort to social media use as a kind of escape mechanism. We should conclude that the information provided (even if the validity of the study is assumed) does not provide sufficient information to show definitively that the proposed restriction would result in developmental or health benefits for minors aged 10 to 15 years. The conclusion is that (1) is not sufficient alone; NOT sufficient.

(2) This statement indicates that use of social media by teens aged 10 to 15 years results in significant developmental benefits for 28% of teens in that age group. In other words, it indicates that social-media use by these teens causally contributes to a developmentally valuable effect. This implies that restriction of their social media use risks depriving a significant number of teens of the benefits resulting from their social-media use. So we can conclude that (2) is sufficient alone to provide a negative answer to the question posed; SUFFICIENT.

The correct answer is B; statement 2 alone is sufficient.
User avatar
purplelemonsoda
Joined: 16 Feb 2020
Last visit: 31 Jan 2025
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
97
 [2]
Given Kudos: 44
WE:Accounting (Aerospace and Defense)
Posts: 32
Kudos: 97
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question asks if a significant number of teens would experience an overall development or health benefit from limiting social media to less than 2 hours a day.

Statement 1:
- shows correlation, not causation between increased social media use and higher rates of anxiety / depression
- doesn't support that restricting social media will result in overall developmental or health benefit to a significant # of teens
- we don't know if social media -> anxiety/depression or the other way around
- Hence, insufficient

Statement 2:
- provides evidence of positive developmental benefits of social media more than 2 hours a day. This shows that there is a causation effect (not just correlation) for this subset of teens/this specific sample size
- since this only 28% are impacted in such a way, we can say that restricting social media use may not yield an overall benefit for a significant (28%) of teens who would loose out on important developmental opportunities.

Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient: it provides a clear basis to answer the question.


Points to note:
- correlation vs causation: causation has implications for the problem statement; correlation is irrelevant since we don't know the order
- 'significant number' depends on context!.. imagine if it said 28% of elderly suffer a heart attack after eating a chocolate, would you say that it's not significant? ofcourse it's significant.
- here, 28% is significant because it is a substantial minority.
- Think about it, 28% is "nearly one-third" and surely, you'd say that's significant.
User avatar
NotoriousGMATMan
Joined: 06 Nov 2024
Last visit: 10 Jul 2025
Posts: 1
Own Kudos:
3
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 3
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
purplelemonsoda
The question asks if a significant number of teens would experience an overall development or health benefit from limiting social media to less than 2 hours a day.

Statement 1:
- shows correlation, not causation between increased social media use and higher rates of anxiety / depression
- doesn't support that restricting social media will result in overall developmental or health benefit to a significant # of teens
- we don't know if social media -> anxiety/depression or the other way around
- Hence, insufficient

Statement 2:
- provides evidence of positive developmental benefits of social media more than 2 hours a day. This shows that there is a causation effect (not just correlation) for this subset of teens/this specific sample size
- since this only 28% are impacted in such a way, we can say that restricting social media use may not yield an overall benefit for a significant (28%) of teens who would loose out on important developmental opportunities.

Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient: it provides a clear basis to answer the question.


Points to note:
- correlation vs causation: causation has implications for the problem statement; correlation is irrelevant since we don't know the order
- 'significant number' depends on context!.. imagine if it said 28% of elderly suffer a heart attack after eating a chocolate, would you say that it's not significant? ofcourse it's significant.
- here, 28% is significant because it is a substantial minority.
- Think about it, 28% is "nearly one-third" and surely, you'd say that's significant.

The primary issue I take with this logic is that the question is asking if a significant number of teens would benefit from the restriction, not if a significant number of teens would be harmed by the restriction.
The 28% of teens in statement 2 would be hurt by the restriction and 28% may be a significant number. However, this says nothing of the other 72% of teens. We are given no information as to if they're helped, harmed, or unaffected.
The group of 28% being harmed does not preclude the group of 72% (or multiple % groups therein) from being helped.
Surely hypothetical information that the other 72%, a more significant number, would instead benefit greatly from the restriction would be pertinent. We don't know because this only addresses the 28%.

Imagine a real world scenario where you're asked to answer this stem and given the info in statement 2. The first thing you would ask is, "what about the other 72%?"

Additionally, and this may be pedantic, the information in statement 2 tells us that were the restriction in place, some (28%) of the teens would not be able to benefit developmentally in some ways. It says nothing of the overall development of that 28%.


I am new to GMAT and this is my first comment here, please let me know where I'm wrong.
User avatar
chini
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 530
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q85 V86 DI82
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q85 V86 DI82
Posts: 18
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel, bb, we could really get some clarity on these new kind of non math data sufficiency questions. they seem to defy logic on so many levels.

how can 28% be a majority. and how does the aspects valuable for development at those ages, translate to "overall development"

As a moderator, please help with such controversial questions. your solution matters more than the official answer
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 42,382
Own Kudos:
82,109
 [5]
Given Kudos: 24,103
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 42,382
Kudos: 82,109
 [5]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Unfortunately there are several examples of the new non-meth related data sufficiency questions that have been released without being tested and frankly seem to leave some gaps. This is because this is the new question type and it was not put through the usual testing process.

You just have to use your best judgment on how much you want to get hung on these. The quality of the questions should be higher on the test, but even if it’s not, that would likely be an experimental question which would not impact your score.
User avatar
SundayRoast
Joined: 29 Oct 2024
Last visit: 23 Jul 2025
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
6
 [1]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 40
Kudos: 6
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Another poor OG DS question. The official answer references the word 'association' - "This statement cites a study that found an association between social-media use by teenagers 10 to 15 years and an increase in the incidence of chronic anxiety or depression among 23% of the minors observed in the study. A key word here is association" yet the question does not mention the word at all.
User avatar
Riri15
Joined: 07 Feb 2021
Last visit: 18 Apr 2025
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 9
Products:
Posts: 35
Kudos: 10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
even if the q said significant number instead of 28%, would it be sufficient?
If x causes Y, does non existence of X implies Y will not happen. Do we have to assume here as well X is the only cause of Y, like in CR Qs?
User avatar
cledgard
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 160
Own Kudos:
356
 [2]
Given Kudos: 71
Status:GMAT Coach
Location: Peru
GPA: 3.98
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 160
Kudos: 356
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
That is exactly what I thought. I have been teaching Gmat for 13 years.
NotoriousGMATMan
purplelemonsoda
The question asks if a significant number of teens would experience an overall development or health benefit from limiting social media to less than 2 hours a day.

Statement 1:
- shows correlation, not causation between increased social media use and higher rates of anxiety / depression
- doesn't support that restricting social media will result in overall developmental or health benefit to a significant # of teens
- we don't know if social media -> anxiety/depression or the other way around
- Hence, insufficient

Statement 2:
- provides evidence of positive developmental benefits of social media more than 2 hours a day. This shows that there is a causation effect (not just correlation) for this subset of teens/this specific sample size
- since this only 28% are impacted in such a way, we can say that restricting social media use may not yield an overall benefit for a significant (28%) of teens who would loose out on important developmental opportunities.

Therefore, statement 2 is sufficient: it provides a clear basis to answer the question.


Points to note:
- correlation vs causation: causation has implications for the problem statement; correlation is irrelevant since we don't know the order
- 'significant number' depends on context!.. imagine if it said 28% of elderly suffer a heart attack after eating a chocolate, would you say that it's not significant? ofcourse it's significant.
- here, 28% is significant because it is a substantial minority.
- Think about it, 28% is "nearly one-third" and surely, you'd say that's significant.

The primary issue I take with this logic is that the question is asking if a significant number of teens would benefit from the restriction, not if a significant number of teens would be harmed by the restriction.
The 28% of teens in statement 2 would be hurt by the restriction and 28% may be a significant number. However, this says nothing of the other 72% of teens. We are given no information as to if they're helped, harmed, or unaffected.
The group of 28% being harmed does not preclude the group of 72% (or multiple % groups therein) from being helped.
Surely hypothetical information that the other 72%, a more significant number, would instead benefit greatly from the restriction would be pertinent. We don't know because this only addresses the 28%.

Imagine a real world scenario where you're asked to answer this stem and given the info in statement 2. The first thing you would ask is, "what about the other 72%?"

Additionally, and this may be pedantic, the information in statement 2 tells us that were the restriction in place, some (28%) of the teens would not be able to benefit developmentally in some ways. It says nothing of the overall development of that 28%.


I am new to GMAT and this is my first comment here, please let me know where I'm wrong.
 1   2   
Moderators:
Math Expert
105355 posts
496 posts