What inferences can you draw from the fact that animals are safer in areas where scientists are carring out their work inference about animals?

Answer 1

Answer:

They are raised in a Lab

Answer:

You cannot conclude that because animals are safer where scientists are that they are ONLY lab animals; it is very possible (and extremely likely in this scenario) that they are wild animals. If the animals are in a lab then safety is moot; their is no need for drawing an inference, there is no danger to the animals. How does this follow?

The question has 4 postulates:

1) There is danger to the animals: scientists reduce the danger. You cannot reduce something that doesn't already exist, therefore initial danger has to be > 0.

2) The initial danger is NOT from the scientists: see #1, the scientists augment the existing danger, they are not the originators.

3) In a closed environment there is no external danger to the animals: a controlled environment defies uncontrolled danger; all is controlled.

4) The scientists are not working in a closed environment (lab) - see #2, #3 the scientists are the only source of danger in the lab environment; since by definition there is initial danger besides the scientists there must something not being controlled, BUT a lab is a controlled environment.

5) Inferences are based on incomplete data, generally about environments that are not controllable.

QED

they are speaking of animals in the wild.

You can say it's possible:

1) Animals are safer because they are being watched closely; poachers are less likely to interfere.

2) A change in the environment (the scientists there) can disrupt the predators and more animals are protected from attack by predator. (a numbers game - are 10 antelopes worth bothering one lion?)

3) Diseased animals are more likely to be cured or destroyed (ending the passing of disease) by scientists thereby increasing health of the rest of the herd.