Last visit was: 02 Sep 2026, 15:17 It is currently 02 Sep 2026, 15:17
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
805+ (Hard)|   Non-Math Related|         
User avatar
SundayRoast
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2024
Last visit: 23 Jul 2025
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
8
 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 40
Kudos: 8
 [2]
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 08 Mar 2025, 10:16
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The OG explanation for this question is directly contradictory to this question. https://gmatclub.com/forum/does-it-bene ... 44DycCRslN
User avatar
lancer4444
User avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2024
Last visit: 28 May 2026
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 598
Posts: 16
Kudos: 4
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 03 Apr 2025, 10:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
10 year old teenagers? this question is a joke on so many levels lol.
User avatar
D3N0
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2015
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 586
Own Kudos:
629
Given Kudos: 132
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
Schools: Smeal'21 (WD) Arizona State'21 (A$) Simon '21 (WD)
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V28
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
WE:Operations (Retail: E-commerce)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Smeal'21 (WD) Arizona State'21 (A$) Simon '21 (WD)
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 586
Kudos: 629
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 30 Jun 2025, 00:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I take issue with the Official answer too.
1) Option says: "A peer-reviewed study indicates a 23% increase in the incidence of..." , But the answer usage "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.
The 23% use here has a different meaning (in both the question and the explanation)

2) I also think that if someone has to find meaning in something significant, it should be at least 50% (just saying) I mean we can count even 1% as substantial, but the question has to clarify that.
How would 1% be significant, you ask? Think of 1% of the world population getting Covid (I pray not). That is significant.
However, as pointed aout before, 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.

So, yes. I chose E too.
User avatar
fsisto
User avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2023
Last visit: 18 Jun 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 Jul 2025, 14:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
✅ (1) Is correlation:
"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."
Here’s why this is correlation:
• The sentence says there's an increase in anxiety/depression among teens who use social media a lot.
• It does not say social media causes anxiety — just that they appear together.
• The verb "indicates" is neutral; it suggests an observation, not a proven cause.
• It could be that teens with anxiety are using social media more to cope — we don’t know which direction the effect goes.
🔍 Imagine seeing clouds and people carrying umbrellas. They're connected (correlated), but clouds don’t cause umbrellas — rain does!
✅ (2) Is causation:
"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..."
Here’s why this is causation:
• The key verb here is "lead" — it shows a direct result.
• The structure tells us social media behavior produces valuable outcomes (friendships, emotional learning).
• It implies that the effect (positive development) is a result of the action (social media use).
• Even though it’s still a bit cautious ("28% of cases"), the language clearly shows a cause-effect relationship.
User avatar
bishal128
User avatar
Joined: 30 May 2025
Last visit: 26 Jul 2026
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 47
Posts: 29
Kudos: 3
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 18 Sep 2025, 21:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Well, in the second statement the word "Certain kinds of engagement with social media.." indicates that it is considering a narrow use of social media based on which the causal inference is made so as to restrict benefit of around 28%. What if this "Certain kinds of engagements" do not entail broader use of social media, and the population of the target age group is small enough not to make it feasible for generalization. The assumption on making answer choice "B" would only be justified if it is assumed that "Certain Kinds of Engagements" entails sufficiently large scenario of social media use and is expected to produce this result with the sufficiently large population representative enough to produce the inductive implication that it is what represent the larger population. I believe in the absence of strong evidence and argument not supporting the same, both approach of (presence or absence) of such assumption is invalid. Thus, with this benefit of doubt, neither of the statement is capable of sufficiently answering the statement. (My Answer Choice was E)
GMATinsight

­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.
Show more
User avatar
GMATCoachBen
User avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 462
Own Kudos:
3,422
Given Kudos: 217
Status:Professional GMAT Trainer
Affiliations: GMAT Coach
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q87 V90 DI88 (Online)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V44
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V44
GMAT 4: 770 Q50 V45 (Online)
GMAT 5: 780 Q51 V48
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q87 V90 DI88 (Online)
GMAT 5: 780 Q51 V48
Posts: 462
Kudos: 3,422
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 05 Feb 2026, 21:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This analysis is excellent: "What about the other 72%?"

The word "overall" is also very important to notice. In fact, the official explanation correctly highlights "overall" as an essential word in another OG DS non-math question.

Some of these OG DS non-math questions are severely flawed and it's disappointing.
NotoriousGMATMan


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.
Show more
User avatar
GulfTube
User avatar
Joined: 13 Apr 2026
Last visit: 17 Aug 2026
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
70
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 210
Kudos: 70
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 May 2026, 07:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
well then significant is very subjective if we leave it to context. Though I agree that when you read statement 2, the first impression you get (at least for me) is that 28% meant significant number, (the key is not to get too hung up on the pre-conceived notion that since the question stem said the word significant, I have to look for more than 50%), but that leaves too much ambiguity for the quantifier words. Gmat is a standardized test so there should be some level of regularity in such things otherwise rightfully so people will get hung up on the conflict this causes on similar CR questions with quantifier words.
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.
Show more
User avatar
FrozenDragon
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2023
Last visit: 25 Aug 2026
Posts: 410
Own Kudos:
683
Given Kudos: 497
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V81 DI78
Products:
Forum Quiz
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V81 DI78
Posts: 410
Kudos: 683
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 May 2026, 22:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GulfTube
well then significant is very subjective if we leave it to context. Though I agree that when you read statement 2, the first impression you get (at least for me) is that 28% meant significant number, (the key is not to get too hung up on the pre-conceived notion that since the question stem said the word significant, I have to look for more than 50%), but that leaves too much ambiguity for the quantifier words. Gmat is a standardized test so there should be some level of regularity in such things otherwise rightfully so people will get hung up on the conflict this causes on similar CR questions with quantifier words.

Show more
Yes, I agree. I think overall point of data sufficiency is to test logic not subjective nuances. However, I believe like others that E is better answer than B.
User avatar
SKP220292
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2026
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 9
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 31
Kudos: 5
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 31 May 2026, 08:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
No, I would not. Or I may. Point being that this is entirely opinion-based - something GMAC categorically expects us not to bias ourselves with. "1/3rd is significant" - show me where the question stem or any of the 2 statements confirm this. IF it does not, then this quoted part is purely an opinion that is outside the scope of the question.
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.
Show more
User avatar
ZeroSquare
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2026
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 63
Posts: 27
Kudos: 1
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 Jul 2026, 04:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
in S1, how does a 23% increase equal to increase in 23% of the minors....how does that make any sense?
also in S2, how do you quantify 28% as significant? What would happen to the rest 72% maybe they will benefit positively cause of removing the social media?

GMATinsight

­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.
Show more
User avatar
basicboehly
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2026
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 71
Location: India
Schools: Duke '27 Kellogg '27 Tuck '27 Tepper '27 Johnson '27 Ross '27 LBS '27
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q82 V81 DI79
GPA: 3.46
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: Duke '27 Kellogg '27 Tuck '27 Tepper '27 Johnson '27 Ross '27 LBS '27
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q82 V81 DI79
Posts: 24
Kudos: 13
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 Jul 2026, 19:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How can it be B when the statement starts with "Certain kinds of engagement" which doesn't even mean 100% of the time, followed by "in about 28% of cases", meaning that from this subset of people (however small or large it may be) 28% of people are positively affected? What is "significant" in this abstract number?

Please help me if you see it in a different way. Thanks!
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.


ID: 700324

Show Spoiler
­Source: GMAT OG 2024-25 (Quant Review)­
­
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,631
Own Kudos:
81,118
Given Kudos: 489
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,631
Kudos: 81,118
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 Jul 2026, 22:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
basicboehly
How can it be B when the statement starts with "Certain kinds of engagement" which doesn't even mean 100% of the time, followed by "in about 28% of cases", meaning that from this subset of people (however small or large it may be) 28% of people are positively affected? What is "significant" in this abstract number?

Please help me if you see it in a different way. Thanks!

Show more

The logic of answer (B) is certainly not sound. But, the actual problem is not whether 28% is significant or not. It is that even for those 28%, who says that there wasn't an OVERALL benefit by reducing social media time to less than 2 hrs. Statement 2 says that more than 2 hours spent on social media leads to certain benefits in 28% cases. But do these benefits outweigh the problems brought in by so much time spent on social media even in these 28% of the cases? The statement doesn't say. So we cannot conclude about the "overall" impact.

Hence statement 2 doesn't give us a Yes/No answer either.

As an aside, 28% would be a significant quantity. It does not need to be 50% to be significant. That is majority.
We would worry more if it were say 7-8% or so.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,287
Own Kudos:
33,892
Given Kudos: 715
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,287
Kudos: 33,892
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 14 Jul 2026, 11:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi basicboehly,

Your reading is careful, and on the facts you're right: "certain kinds of engagement" does describe a subset, and "about 28%" is a portion of that subset, not everyone. Distrusting a vague word like "significant" is a healthy instinct.

Here's where the path to E slips, though. You're treating this like a value question - as if you had to prove 28% clears some numeric bar for "significant." But the stem is a yes/no: would the restriction give a significant number of teens an overall benefit? For sufficiency you only need a definite yes-or-no, not a precise count.

What Statement 2 actually locks down

It uses the causal word "lead": for a real, non-trivial group of these teens, the 2+ hours of usage produces genuine developmental goods - friendships, social/emotional learning. The restriction would cut that usage off. So for that group, the restriction removes benefit rather than delivering it.

That's enough to answer the stem - no, we can't say the restriction would broadly benefit teens; for a substantial portion it would do the opposite. Definite answer - sufficient.

Contrast Statement 1: it only reports that heavy users show more anxiety. That's a correlation, and it never tells us cutting usage would reverse anything (anxious teens may simply use more). No definite direction - not sufficient. The real gap between the two statements is causal direction, not the size of the percentage.

On the word "significant"

Don't hunt for a 50% threshold - the question never asks you to pin an exact number, and ~28% is nearly a third, a substantial minority either way. The lever that makes Statement 2 work is the verb "lead" (cause), not the number 28.

Quick parallel: if asked "Would banning a food benefit most people?" and told "that food causes real health gains in about 30% of eaters," you can already answer no - the ban strips a genuine benefit from a real group. You never needed to prove exactly 30%. Same move here.

Answer: B

basicboehly
How can it be B when the statement starts with "Certain kinds of engagement" which doesn't even mean 100% of the time, followed by "in about 28% of cases", meaning that from this subset of people (however small or large it may be) 28% of people are positively affected? What is "significant" in this abstract number?

Please help me if you see it in a different way. Thanks!

Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,287
Own Kudos:
33,892
Given Kudos: 715
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,287
Kudos: 33,892
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 14 Jul 2026, 11:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi ZeroSquare,

You've actually caught a real wording slip in that official write-up, so let's separate what matters from what doesn't.

On S1 and the "23%"

You're right: a "23%increase in the incidence" is a relative rise in the rate of anxiety/depression - it is not "23% of the minors." The official explanation phrased that loosely, so don't let it throw you.

Here's the key, though: how you read 23% never decides S1 either way. S1 only reports an association - heavy users happen to show more anxiety/depression. It says nothing about what actually imposing the restriction would do. It could even be that already-anxious teens turn to social media, not the reverse. So S1 gives no definite yes/no about the restriction's benefit - not sufficient regardless of how you read 23%.

On S2 and "significant"

Two separate things are going on here.

- "Significant number" in the stem is meant in the ordinary sense - a substantial share, not "over 50%." Nearly a third clears that bar; the stem never sets a majority threshold.
- The verb is the real engine. S2 says 2+ hours of engagement leads to developmental value for ~28%. That's causal language - unlike S1's mere association. Because it's cause-and-effect, we can predict what the restriction does: it would strip a documented developmental gain from a significant group. That delivers a definite answer to the stem - the restriction would not be an overall benefit for a significant number.

So the contrast the question is testing:

- S1: correlation only - can't predict the restriction's effect - not sufficient.
- S2: cause-and-effect - lets you predict the restriction's effect - sufficient.

As for "what about the other 72%?" - remember a yes/no question only needs one definite answer, and S2's causal link already produces one for a significant group. That's why the answer is B.

Answer: B

ZeroSquare
in S1, how does a 23% increase equal to increase in 23% of the minors....how does that make any sense?
also in S2, how do you quantify 28% as significant? What would happen to the rest 72% maybe they will benefit positively cause of removing the social media?


Show more
User avatar
MrMaxMan
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2026
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 49
Posts: 63
Kudos: 2
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 13 Aug 2026, 19:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question is asking for a definitive answer.

The first statement is saying that some people who engage in those activities have anxiety or depression but it does not mean that they have those symptoms because of the social media, just that some people who engage in those activities have that. This is a correlation is not causation situation.

The secpmd statement is telling us explicitely that there are some benefits for a certain amount of people who participate in 2 or more hours per day of social media. It isn't being suggested like in statement 1 with "indicates." This means statement 2 is sufficient because we are presented with a benefits which if removed would reduce those benefits absolutely.
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.


ID: 700324

Show Spoiler
­Source: GMAT OG 2024-25 (Quant Review)­
­
Show more
User avatar
Krish13tss
User avatar
Joined: 09 May 2024
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
17
Given Kudos: 39
Location: India
Posts: 71
Kudos: 17
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 16 Aug 2026, 04:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question: would restricting social media help teens?
Statement 2 says: using social media a lot causes good things (friendships, learning) for 28% of teens.
Key word: "lead to" = causes.
So if social media causes good things, then taking it away = removing those good things from 28% of teens.
That means the restriction would not help a big group — it would hurt them by removing a benefit.
That's an answer: "No."
In Data Sufficiency, getting a clear "No" counts as sufficient. You don't need the answer to be "yes" — you just need a definite answer. Statement 2 gives a definite "No." → Sufficient → B
User avatar
akkkk1
User avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2023
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 169
Location: India
Posts: 12
Kudos: 2
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 26 Aug 2026, 11:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
B says: On average, 28% of teenagers will be benefitted from the use of social media. Which means a restriction on social media would hamper the potential development of about 28% of teenagers - telling us nothing about the remaining 72%.
As per my understanding, that still does not answer whether a "significant number of teens" benefit from a restriction. The change affects, on average, 28% of the teenagers in some capacity. But is that percentage "significant"?
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.


ID: 700324

Show Spoiler
­Source: GMAT OG 2024-25 (Quant Review)­
­
Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,287
Own Kudos:
33,892
Given Kudos: 715
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,287
Kudos: 33,892
­It has been proposed that teenagers aged 10 to 15 years be restricted 27 Aug 2026, 03:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi akkkk1,

Your two worries are really one worry the whole thread keeps circling: is 28% "significant," and what about the other 72%? Let me split them, because only one of them actually decides sufficiency.

First, this is a yes/no question, not a value question. You're treating "significant" as a number you have to clear - as if you had to prove 28% crosses some 50% line. But the stem never sets a threshold. "Significant number" is meant in the ordinary sense: a substantial share. About 28% is nearly a third, which reads as substantial either way. In DS you only need a definite yes-or-no, not a precise count - so don't go hunting for a magic percentage.

Second, the 72% isn't a gap once you see what makes Statement 2 work. The engine is the causal verb "lead to." Statement 2 says 2+ hours of engagement causes real developmental goods (friendships, social/emotional learning) for a substantial group. The proposed restriction cuts that usage off. So for that group, the restriction removes a documented benefit rather than delivering one. That's already a definite answer to the stem - no, we can't say the restriction broadly benefits teens. Definite answer → sufficient. You never needed to know what happens to the other 72%, because one definite answer is all a yes/no question requires.

Contrast Statement 1, which is the real reason it fails: it only reports that heavy users show more anxiety/depression - a correlation. It never establishes that cutting usage reverses anything (anxious teens might simply use social media more). No causal direction → not sufficient.

A quick parallel to lock it in

Suppose you're asked, "Would banning a snack benefit most kids?" and told, "that snack causes real nutritional gains in about 30% of kids." You can already answer no - the ban strips a genuine benefit from a substantial group. You never had to prove exactly 30% was "significant," and you never had to check the other 70%. Same move here.

The lever is the word "lead" (cause), not the number 28. That's what separates Statement 2 from Statement 1 - and why the answer is B.

Answer: B

akkkk1
B says: On average, 28% of teenagers will be benefitted from the use of social media. Which means a restriction on social media would hamper the potential development of about 28% of teenagers - telling us nothing about the remaining 72%.
As per my understanding, that still does not answer whether a "significant number of teens" benefit from a restriction. The change affects, on average, 28% of the teenagers in some capacity. But is that percentage "significant"?

Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
Bunuel
Math Expert
113061 posts
FrozenDragon
DI Forum Moderator
410 posts