> 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 assert

> 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.