People on either side of the smartphones-for-teens debate can't agree on the evidence. sure, there's proof of cyber bullying. there's also proof of educational benefits. yet nothing is conclusive, so no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens. anyone supporting such a restriction is naïve and uniformed. he or she is reacting from emotion instead of using his or her brain to study all the evidence and make a decision specific to his or her own teen. the bottom line is it's up to parents to be parents. why spend billions of dollars on trying to stop cyber bullying or explore educational apps? it's probably just another human assumption that we can control the technology we've created. trying is a waste of time and money. which of the following is true about this argument excerpt?