Can deer be at the zoo if there are deer at the zoo, and some deer have antlers?

Question

• Some deer have antlers.
• There are deer at the zoo.

Which is the conclusion based on the above statements?

1. Deer can be at the zoo.
2. All deer with antlers are to be found at the zoo.
3. Antlers of a deer are pretty.
4. At the zoo, some deer can have antlers.
5. The zoo is the only place where deer live.
6. Deer at the zoo have antlers.

Apparently the answer is #4. It's a 'can', so ok, I guess? But in that case, why not #1? I guess #1 is wrong if 'can' is used in the sense of permission.

ETA:

• I think #4 is wrong because of the possibility that the deer with antlers happen to not be found at the zoo. The mere possibility is sufficient to conclude that it does not follow that the zoo deer have antler potential.

• For #1 however, no non-contradictory condition can ever make it false. Hence, it is right.

Answer 1

Okay, let's look at the options:

1. "Deer can be at the zoo" - I would vote for this because if there are deer at the zoo, then deer CAN be at the zoo.
2. All deer with antlers can be found at the zoo: There is no proof that the deers with antlers and the deer who are at the zoo would overlap in any way. So: this is not true.
3. Antlers of a deer are pretty: A subjective statement, so no.
4. At the zoo, some deer can have antlers: As in the second statement, there is no proof of overlapping. But there can be some overlapping - we don't know.
5. The zoo is the only place where deer live: It was only said that there are some deer at the zoo, so we cannot say that all of them would be there.
6. Deer at the zoo have antlers: again the same logic as in the second and fourth point.

Therefore, only the first point is in any way logical.