What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly).

If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?

I'm using personal experience. I live in Canada, and I'm a parent, so I tend to frequent places that kids congregate. From my experience there are plenty of opportunities out there for someone to abduct children if they were halfway intelligent and motivated to do so. If indeed there was only one incidence over a two year span in the entire country (although your reference is apparently 25, not one?) it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors.

> it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors

Or a lack of unsupervised children?

I don't know. I think you're probably correct. But really the assertion would be might stronger if there was more than anecdotal evidence to back it up.

This is what I'm trying to say the data presented in the article, is on the level of anecdotal evidence. Which, tends to weaken the argument rather than strengthen it.