Which of the following best summarises the author's position?
Every few months a new study reports that screen time is harming teenagers. The studies are usually correlations: children who spend more time online also report lower wellbeing. But a correlation can be explained in several ways. Perhaps screens cause unhappiness; perhaps unhappy teenagers retreat to their screens; perhaps a third factor, such as poor sleep or family conflict, drives both. The honest summary is that we do not yet know. That does not mean we should do nothing. Where the cost of a precaution is low, as with keeping phones out of bedrooms overnight, it is reasonable to act while research continues. What is unreasonable is to present the correlation as proof of damage, or to dismiss it on the grounds that correlation is not causation.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. The evidence is inconclusive, but cheap precautions are sensible while research continues
- Step 1: The author says 'we do not yet know' and then advises low-cost precautions.
- Step 2: Both extreme readings are rejected in the final sentence.
Answer
The evidence is inconclusive, but cheap precautions are sensible while research continues.
Why not the others: The author refuses to treat correlation as proof, refuses to dismiss it, rejects waiting for certainty, and lists poor sleep only as one possible third factor.
Practise more Children and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.