Critical Reasoning

Cowonga lion cubs in the wild often engage in aggressive and even violent play with their siblings. This activity is apparently instigated by the parent lions. Cowonga lion cubs born in captivity,however,rarely engage in aggressive play. Zoologists have concluded that this form of play teaches the young lions the aggressive skills necessary for successful hunting in the wild and that such play is not instigated in captivity because the development of hunting skills is unnecessary there.

The zoologists' conclusion would be most strengthened by demonstrating that

(A) Cowonga lions raised in captivity are unable to hunt successfully in the wild.

(B) the skills developed from aggressive play are similar to those used for hunting in the wild.

(C) the young of other types of predatory animals also engage in aggressive play.

(D) parent lions that were raised in captivity do not instigate this play in their young.

(E) none of the Cowonga lions raised in the wild is incapable of hunting successfully.

I selected option E. and cannot understand why A is the correct answer only. According to me both A and E are strong contenders.
reasoning - zoologists thinks that a cause ( aggressive play teaching by parents ) leads to an efect -> successfully hunting skills.
So if the cause is present, effect should be present.
if cause is NOT present, effect should not be present

option E says none is incapable => means ( as per me) all cowonga lions raised in wild ( with aggressive skills taught and hence cause present) => can hunt successfully ( effect present) hence E should very well strengthen the argument.
Please point out where am i going wrong in this logic
option A which is the OA, states just that in lions raised in captivity ( no cause present => no aggressive play teaching ) => no effect present => cannot hunt successfully.
So both A and E are strong contenders, then why do we discard E here.
kaplan experts please explain >?????

As we already know that A is the correct answer, let me clear your doubt regarding E as well as the other options:

B is already stated in the passage so it does nothing for strengthening the argument.
C is beyond the scope of this argument
D is also already stated in the passage.
E You have to remember here that the conclusion drawn by the author is referring to a comparison between lions of the wild and those born in captivity. E only talks of lions in the wild and this does nothing to strengthen or weaken the conclusion. The conclusion here is that lions in the wild are taught a certain skill to hunt well whereas lions in captivity are not taught the same. So E cannot properly strengthen this argument.

A however makes a comparison between both sides, i.e., captivity and wilderness. It says that lions raised in captivity are unable to hunt in the wild which shows that those lions born in captivity are not imparted the skills required to hunt in the wild. So this strengthens the conclusion of the zoologist.

Reply back in case you require further clarifications!

Birottam , thanks for the reply, but unfortunately this does not clear the doubt.

You said => A however makes a comparison between both sides, i.e., captivity and wilderness ( how is A making comparison between both sides ? I cannot fathom, A is just saying loins in captivity cannot hunt successfully ; and A does not mention anything about loins in wild ?? can they hunt successfull ? not implied or given by A right ? option E exactly mention that and hence i choose it ). It says that lions raised in captivity are unable to hunt in the wild which shows that those lions born in captivity are not imparted the skills required to hunt in the wild. So this strengthens the conclusion of the zoologist.

You also said => E only talks of lions in the wild and this does nothing to strengthen or weaken the conclusion.( it very well strengthen the argument, saying cause ( agreesive skill present ) and hence effect ( successful hunting ) is present) . The conclusion here is that lions in the wild are taught a certain skill to hunt well whereas lions in captivity are not taught the same. So E cannot properly strengthen this argument.

Gaurav,

The conclusion is:

"Zoologists have concluded that this form of play teaches the young lions the aggressive skills necessary for successful hunting in the wild and that such play is not instigated in captivity because the development of hunting skills is unnecessary there."

If we are tho strengthen this argument, then we must show how this form of play affects hunting skills in lions. If lions in captivity are incapable of hunting then it will strengthen the argument that this form of play is required to be able to hunt properly.

However, if we just show that wild lions are all successful in hunting then there may be other reasons (not covered in this argument) which are responsible for this. You have to understand that A is the better pick than E in all cases.

Experts may please explain better.

Hey, that's my post above!! I don't know how I logged onto that account but realized only after posting the answer!

fgbg,
Thanks for the reply, but I do not agree to your reasoning.

In all strengthen questions, more or less, if we light upon the assumption made in the argument ( that is the gap between facts stated and the conclusion given ) then that assumption can help either strengthen or weaking the argument .

Here the assumption is "agreesive play is needed for successful hunting skills in wild." . It is like a cause and effect argument. I have seen many clear gmat prep questions which depends on ways of reasoning. option A says cause is not present -> hence effect is also not present . strenthen agreed.
option E says - case is present, then effect, is also present.

option E is prefectly valid in my views and hence question looks ambiguous to me, and it does not look like a real gmac question.
If you read the cause and effect reasoning chapter of power score guide , you will understand better, when I am trying to say here;

And you eliminated the option E based on your reasoning of "many other reasons possible for successful hunting of wild cubs" is outside the scope of argument, and we cannot depend on many other factors to eliminate E.

Going by your similar reasoning, option A can also be eliminated , saying there can be many other (outside scope) reasons present for the cubs raised in captivity to be unsuccessful in wild hunting.

hence fgbg, you need to understand that your reasoning is beyond my understanding at all, and hence I seriously doubt it. no offence meant though