Key on the "not necessarily". It's not phrasing I would ever use, and if I saw it I'd recommend someone change it, but I don't think it necessarily implies anyt

Key on the "not necessarily". It's not phrasing I would ever use, and if I saw it I'd recommend someone change it, but I don't think it necessarily implies anything; it's more like simple, dumb clickbait. I agree it'd probably still be generally considered offensive. But it's also different because it's negative vs. positive attributes. Animals not getting lost is generally a positive trait. If you had a headline like: >Why Indians do so well on exams about them studying a lot or whatever (nothing to do with cheating or anything negative), then it's still probably clickbait-y, but not really offensive or unclear. I think this is kind of a subtle grammar thing. "Why animals don't get lost" is a somewhat stylized phrasing (common among publications like The New Yorker), which if seen in that stylized context is likely intended to be interpreted as "Why [some/many] animals don't get lost". Imagine a headline "Why people don't like chocolate". Most people probably like chocolate; some don't. The grammar isn't implying the group "people" does not like chocolate; the plural is referring to an arbitrary, floating bag or set wherein each person happens to not like chocolate. I think "Why animals don't get lost" is using that same kind of grammar. They could've written "Why animals tend not to get lost", or "Why many animals don't get lost", but it doesn't look or sound as nice. But I'm sure the clickbaitiness was also a factor.