Interpretation

Question

“Basically, we love animals. And many of us have pets that could have benefitted from donated blood.”

The above is an excerpt from a dialogue regarding pets donating blood. I can't think of cases where the pets could not have surgery (due to previous no-availability of donated blood and died because the sentence says "have pets".

Is the following understanding of the second sentence correct?

Previously there was no blood banks for animals. These pets did not receive a blood transfusion when they had an accident and needed surgery, and as a result they are still in bad condition (such as walking with a limp).

Is the following interpretation possible?

The pets still have not benefitted from donated blood because they have not had any accident so far.

Is neither of the above interpretations correct?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

HKman
“First sentence: Basically, we love animals. Second sentence: And many of us have pets that could have benefitted from donated blood.”
The above is an excerpt from a dialogue regarding pets donating blood. [ I can't think of cases where the pets could not have surgery (due to previous no-availability of donated blood)? and died because the sentence says "have pets". ] I don't understand the relevance of this bracketed comment.
Is the following understanding of the second sentence correct?
Previously there was no blood banks for animals. These pets did not receive a blood transfusion when they had an accident and needed surgery, and as a result they are still in bad condition (such as walking with a limp). [ This is a highly fanciful interpretation of the sentence. The sentence does not really give us that much information related to blood banks for animal blood, pet accidents, or pet surgery, let alone the condition of pets which may have undergone surgery.]
Is the following interpretation possible?
The pets still have not benefitted from donated blood because they have not had any accident so far. [ Again, it's far more than is actually said in the sentence. There's nothing in the sentence about pets not receiving donated blood or pets who have had or have not had accidents.]
Is neither of the above interpretations correct? [ These interpretations are not incorrect so much as they are off the track because they add information that is speculative. ]

Maybe I don't understand what you consider an "interpretation" to be, but the sentence in question seems to me so self-evident that it really doesn't require an interpretation.

And many of us have pets that could have benefitted from donated blood.
~
People have pets. Some of these pets may have needed help in the past which could have been given in the form of a blood transfusion.

CJ

Interpretation

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions