Crack! The shell of an abalone breaks upon a rock after a sea otter repeatedly bangs the shell against the rock in order to retrieve the meat inside of it. Conducting an observation that validates sea otters’ use of tools would have to include the time and duration of the observation, the number of specimens to be observed, and a method of observation.
The time and duration of the observation of the animal is a crucial element in the experiment. In “The Great Crow Fallacy,” the author states, “Cristol’s study was based on more than a couple of random observations. He and his colleagues watched crows foraging for walnuts . . . for a total of over twenty-five hours spread over fourteen days.” In Daniel Cristol’s observation for crows, he observed crows for several days and for a great amount of hours. As a result, Cristol was able to obtain a more reliable collection data, for one day of data wouldn’t have accurately determined if the crows used tools or …show more content…
For instance, in “The Great Crow Fallacy,” the author states, “An estimated 10,000 crows were roosting nearby.” Daniel Cristol had a good approximation of how many crows would be observed in the experiment. Additionally, Cristol’s sample size was large, and a large sample size is essential in an experiment because it is a factor in deciding whether the data collected is reliable or not; observing more subjects will result in the data being more representative of the entire population of the animal being observed. For instance, after the experiment, a minimum of 2,000 otters should be observed after by the time the experiment ends; this will guarantee a more accurate representation of the sea otter population, as well as vindicate that sea otters use tools. Therefore, a substantial aspect in the experiment is the number of specimens being observed, and more specifically, observing a significant amount of
The time and duration of the observation of the animal is a crucial element in the experiment. In “The Great Crow Fallacy,” the author states, “Cristol’s study was based on more than a couple of random observations. He and his colleagues watched crows foraging for walnuts . . . for a total of over twenty-five hours spread over fourteen days.” In Daniel Cristol’s observation for crows, he observed crows for several days and for a great amount of hours. As a result, Cristol was able to obtain a more reliable collection data, for one day of data wouldn’t have accurately determined if the crows used tools or …show more content…
For instance, in “The Great Crow Fallacy,” the author states, “An estimated 10,000 crows were roosting nearby.” Daniel Cristol had a good approximation of how many crows would be observed in the experiment. Additionally, Cristol’s sample size was large, and a large sample size is essential in an experiment because it is a factor in deciding whether the data collected is reliable or not; observing more subjects will result in the data being more representative of the entire population of the animal being observed. For instance, after the experiment, a minimum of 2,000 otters should be observed after by the time the experiment ends; this will guarantee a more accurate representation of the sea otter population, as well as vindicate that sea otters use tools. Therefore, a substantial aspect in the experiment is the number of specimens being observed, and more specifically, observing a significant amount of