Observations vs Inferences

 

In part B on the right, the picture is zoomed in too much on the flower. On the left it is zoomed out more, so in addition to seeing the circumference of the flower, you can also see the leaves. Since the leaves are also pictures in part A along with the entire tree which the flower grows on, they serve as a pretty good indicator of size. Photograph A is also clearer on the left, it looks as though it might have been to bright on in the photo on the right side. The flower is also more ruffled and unruly on the right side, making it harder to visually inspect its circumference. In part C, a smaller, more specific section of the map is highlighted on the left, as opposed to a larger area on the right. 

In part D on the left, the card is placed too high above the flower and at a different angle towards the camera than the flower, so it is hard to see the card as a relative indicator of size. The photo is taken from too high of an angle upwards which also seems to be distorting. On the right, the card is placed horizontally right against the back of the flower and the photo is taken directly parallel to it.