2 posts • Page 1 of 1
I understand the answer to this question, but I am wondering why RN III is assumed implausible? RN III states "on a hunting trip, nicking an infected hare from a 25 foot distance, resulting in a blood spray, though not a kill". The reasoning for this being incorrect is "An animal 25 feet away would be too far too inhale the aerosolized blood" Why is this assumption made? It states that it results in "blood spray" so how come the assumption of blood being sprayed towards the hunter in a range close enough to inhale the aerosolized blood is not made? Just to add to all of the assumptions, why can't you assume a strong wind blowing the aerosolized blood toward the hunter opposed to no wind at all?
The basic rule with assumptions is that it is better to not make them than to make them. By the same token, assuming the absence of something that wasn't stated or implied to be present is always preferable than assuming the presence of that same thing. This may not be entirely satisfying (and it can be tricky to pick out which is better in a given case), but that's often how it goes with CARS! I can see how it feels like a judgment call at times, and it can be, but you'll get better with making these calls as you go. The fact that you're asking the question is a sign that you're engaging deeply in the review process, which is ultimately the best thing you can do for yourself in the CARS section.