Text 1: Psychologist Dr. Linda Foster argues that social media use correlates with increased anxiety and depression among teenagers. "Studies consistently show higher rates of mental health issues among heavy social media users," Foster states. "The constant comparison to curated online personas damages self-esteem."
Text 2: Researcher Dr. Kevin Patel contends that the relationship between social media and mental health is more nuanced. "Correlation doesn't prove causation," Patel notes. "Teens with pre-existing mental health challenges may simply use social media more as a coping mechanism or social outlet."
How would Patel (Text 2) most likely characterize Foster's conclusion in Text 1?
As accurate but incomplete in its analysis of contributing factors
As potentially drawing a causal conclusion from correlational data
As contradicted by more recent longitudinal research
As biased against technological innovation
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Patel explicitly states "Correlation doesn't prove causation" and offers an alternative explanation where causation might run in the opposite direction.
- Evidence: Foster notes "correlates with" but implies causation; Patel challenges this inference.
- Reasoning: Patel's alternative hypothesis (teens with issues use social media more) reverses the causal arrow.
- Conclusion: Patel would argue Foster may be conflating correlation with causation.
Choice A is incorrect because Patel questions the conclusion itself, not just missing factors. Choice C is incorrect because Patel doesn't cite contradicting research. Choice D is incorrect because Patel doesn't accuse Foster of bias against technology.