Question

Emiyo is researching snake bites in animals in the United States. She notes that out of the animals that regularly have run-ins with snakes, dogs are more likely to die than are cattle or horses. In fact, 30 percent of dogs bitten by a venomous snake do not survive, whereas the mortality rate in horses that are bitten is much lower. What conclusion would Emiyo most likely reach after discovering this data?

1) There are more treatments widely available for horses than there are for dogs.
2) Dog owners are much more likely to report a snakebite than other animal owners.
3) The size and weight of an animal directly affect their chance of survival.
4) Horses have a built-up tolerance for snake venom after being previously exposed.

Answer 1

Emiyo would most likely conclude that the size and weight of an animal affect their survival chances after a venomous snake bite, with larger animals like horses having a better survival rate.

Step-by-step explanation:

Based on the data that Emiyo collected about snake bites in animals in the United States, and the fact that 30 percent of dogs bitten by a venomous snake do not survive compared to a much lower mortality rate in horses, the most likely conclusion Emiyo would reach is that the size and weight of an animal directly affect their chance of survival. Larger animals such as horses and cattle often have more body mass that can absorb the venom, which may lead to a lower relative toxicity and better survival rates. This size factor, rather than the availability of treatments or reporting behavior, could be the primary reason for the observed difference in mortality rates.