The statement “Investing $200 per month at 6% annual return can grow substantially over time” sounds encouraging and is true in spirit — small, consistent contributions do compound — but the quiz’s labeled correct answer marks this assertion **False** because the word “substantially” is subjective and depends entirely on horizon and expectations. If someone interprets “substantially” as “enough to replace a full-time income in a decade,” then $200/month at 6% would not meet that bar. For short horizons (one or two years), the nominal result is small: 200 × 12 = 2400 in one year, so the immediate payoff is modest. Over longer horizons (20–40 years), however, compound growth can indeed produce meaningful sums; that nuance is why the blunt assertion without a timeframe can mislead learners about scale and expectations.

Practically, the correct teaching point is to define what “substantially” means for your goal. For retirement or long-term wealth building, $200/month with compounding is useful and will grow materially over decades, but it is not a shortcut to wealth in a few years. Use realistic calculators: for example, 200/month at 6% compounded monthly for 30 years grows far more than the cumulative $72,000 in contributions because interest compounds — but the growth is sensitive to time. If you need a quick replacement income or a lump-sum for a near-term purchase, this plan is unlikely to be sufficient. So the “False” classification flags the imprecision in the original claim rather than denying compounding’s power; the remedy is to pair contribution amounts and rates with concrete timeframes and targets.