I don't know which question is more natural and grammatical. Particularly the difference between do and can.
a. Can rodents survive if they fall into a hidden trap?
b. Can rodents survive if they get caught in a hidden trap?
c. Do rodents survive a hidden trap if they fall into it?
d. Do rodents survive a hidden trap if get caught in?
Regarding c and d, when you say "Do", you're asking for a firm generalization: "Yes, they do survive" or "No, they don't survive", whereas, as implied in a and b, neither their survival nor their death is guaranteed. They're in a trap. Rodent traps are intended to kill rodents, but they're rarely 100% effective.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Regarding c and d, when you say "Do", you're asking for a firm generalization: "Yes, they do survive" or "No, they don't survive", whereas, as implied in a and b, neither their survival nor their death is guaranteed. They're in a trap. Rodent traps are intended to kill rodents, but they're rarely 100% effective. That's quite a bit of uncertainty under which to make a generalization like "Do ro
Broadly speaking,
can focuses on possibility and not with whether it actually happens
do focuses on whether it actually happens.
We don't usually say 'a hidden trap', just 'a trap'.
a. Can rodents survive if they fall into a hidden trap? Correct English. But the normal collocation is'caught in a trap', not 'fall into a trap'.