Actually, relying solely on an abstract is shoddy research. As anyone who has written an article for a journal (or even someone who's had to sift through approximately a metric crapton of them for research papers) can tell you, the space for abstracts is extremely limited. Because this limitation necessitates an abbreviation of the research within, the authors tend to speak in very, very general terms about the paper. This leads to most abstracts being (unintentionally, I like to think) a little misleading about the scope and breadth of the paper itself. The questions you ask, both 1 and 2, would be answered in the methodology section of the paper. If you're looking to pronounce it as shoddy, at least do so on the basis of the primary source rather than multiple secondary sources.
And, given that they've claimed that their research shows that prediction of future events based on current circumstances isn't beyond the cognitive capabilities of rats, you're probably going to need some sort of source to refute it, preferably one based on the research of other behavioral scientists well-versed in the normal capabilities of rats. Your post makes it clear that you are not one, so without proper sourcing and research it's pretty difficult to take your assertions at all seriously.