 Today I'm gonna give you five of the quantitative data analysis questions from the digital SAT in five minutes or less. Today we're gonna focus on those questions that ask you to support a claim using data and tomorrow I'm gonna show you how to handle the questions where you have to complete the text using data. And it's gonna ask you what data from the graph best supports the researcher's claim and so what you need to do is go straight to the text and try to figure out what that claim is. Jill argues that focusing on a specific relationship status including less common statuses could lead to growth. I'm not quite sure what we're talking about in terms of growth here. I may wanna go read that first sentence so I get a better idea. It says, although dating apps are hardly new, they have proliferated considerably in recent years on mobile phones. However, it seems that the growth has stalled. Okay, so the growth in use of dating apps has stalled. It's gone flat, but that this marketing expert thinks that if we focus on this specific kind of group we could actually see some growth. So all I wanna do is find an answer that matches that idea. First one says here that 30% have used a dating app and there's significant room for growth across all statuses. The all status answer is always gonna be wrong if we're being asked to focus on something specific. B, the group with the lowest usage rate are married couples and there are likely few dating apps focused on married couples. That doesn't really make any sense. Married couples would be a very large group, first of all, not an uncommon one and obviously not a group that really needs to use dating apps. C says, the only group with any growth at all was the divorced separated widowed category all of whom could benefit from having an app focused on their specific situation. That's your answer. And we do see that when we look at the data there was that one percentage point growth in that category. So it makes sense that the expert would be telling us to focus on that category for more growth. For a second question, we're gonna focus on the claim here. And it says that when examining data from younger workers he found the pay gap is much smaller. Therefore it would be best to focus on the gap in older workers. First sentence tells me the gender pay gap. So the point here he's trying to make is that there are different gender pay gaps. There's a gender pay gap for younger workers which is less than there is for older workers. And so we should focus on the older workers. So let's take a look at our answer choices. Despite the better situation for female workers aged 25, 34, there's still a pay gap that must be addressed. He's not asking us to focus on the younger workers. He wants us to focus just on the older ones. Comparing all female workers to those aged 25 to 34. All right, so this thing all women that's gonna be wrong. Also we need to focus specifically on the group that he wants us to. C says, female workers aged 25 to 34 have closed the gap significantly faster than other women reducing the gap by 12 points. Okay, that is true, but that's not the point he's trying to make. D says, the gap for women aged 25 to 34 is currently 10 points smaller than it is for all female workers. There's our point. Okay, proving the efforts to close the pay gap should focus more on older workers. That's exactly what he was trying to say. D is the right answer. All right, for the third question says CDC director Rochelle Walensky has argued that mental health support needs to be increased to address this issue. The distinction of being the only nation where gunshots are the primary death of children. Okay, so basically a lot of kids die in the USA because of guns, it's really sad. She argues that mental health is the issue. Gun deaths among children sharply increased in 2020 and 2021, years where the pandemic had a significant mental health impact on young people in school. There's your answer, that's gotta be it. After 2020, we see a huge increase in the number of children dying from guns. So the argument makes sense. This data does support the claim. We're gonna mark A and move on. The fourth question here is asking about John Stapleton's claim. And so if we look at the text for John Stapleton in the middle, it says, the author of How Americans View Their Jobs hypothesized that people would be likely to see their work as more integral to their identity if they received more education. Those with some college or less had approximately the same number of responses in each of the three categories. So that answer is gonna be wrong because we wanna focus probably on that extremely or very column. B, the percent of respondents reporting that their job was only somewhat important or not important was the lowest in the group with postgraduate studies. And for the same reason I can say B is wrong, I wanna make sure I focus on that extremely or very important column. There was a 5% increase in those who claimed their job was very important in their identity when respondents had a bachelor's degree and a further 14% increase when a master's or doctor was involved. That's the answer right there. So we're seeing the importance to one's identity continuously increasing as we add education. That's your best answer. Okay, question five asks us about Al Gore's claim and in the text Al Gore says that we must be careful about how we communicate progress as it can suddenly cause support to decline. He specifically noted the Paris Agreement signed in 2016 provided a false sense of comfort to many people. Several countries including Canada and France saw modest declines in concern about climate change in 2017. I wanna take a quick look at the data there because that could support his point. 2017 would be after the Paris Agreement and I do see that there are small declines there but I don't think that that's the best evidence for this question. So let's go for B. Four of the country's surveyed saw declines in concern over climate change after the Paris Agreement was signed with several others flatlining during that time. I wanna make sure that the data supports that and it says here that yeah, four countries saw declines. I can see that for example in Poland there's a big decline right there and then there's also several flatlining countries like South Africa and so that illustrates the claim. I think B is our best answer. The key to handling these questions is to make sure you understand the claim and then look at the answers and then check the data. If the answer could support the claim you have to check the data. If the answer doesn't support the claim at all just ignore it and keep moving. Here in like question five I have two answers that could support the claim but one did a much better job than the other and so it's important for me to make sure I check with the data and make sure I find the best support for that claim. You also wanna try to read that first sentence of each paragraph just to get an idea of what the paragraph is about but also make sure you focus on where that claim is and so you can minimize reading the whole paragraph just kind of picking the parts that you need so that you can improve your speed. Tomorrow I'm gonna show you a video on how to handle the other kinds of questions where we do sentence completion style graphs and charts questions so I will see you then.