A) => No proof of lion being born in gestation. Let us for a moment assume that a lion is born in in gestation. However, we cannot generalize to include all animals.hk wrote:Another one...
A newborn kangaroo, or joey, is born after a short gestation period of only 39 days. At this stage, the joey's hind limbs are not well developed, but its forelimbs are well developed, so that it can can climb from the cloaca into its mother's pouch for further development. The recent discovery that ancient marsupial lions were also born with only their forelimbs developed supports the hypothesis that newborn marsupial lions must also have needed to climb into their mothers' pouches.
The argument in this passage relies on which of the following assumptions?
A) All animals that are born after a short gestation period are born with some parts of their bodies underdeveloped.
B) Well developed forelimbs would have been more advantageous to ancient marsupial lions than well developed hind limbs would have been.
C) If the newborn marsupial lion did not climb into its mother's pouch, then paleontologists would be able to find evidence that it did so.
D) Newborn marsupial lions that crawled into their mothers' pouches could not have done so had they not had only their forelimbs developed at birth.
E) Newborn marsupial lions would not have had only their forelegs developed if this development were of no use to the marsupial lions.
B) => No proof of being more advantageous.
C)=> Out of scope.
D)=> Could be. However, E) comes very close.
E)=> joey's hind limbs are not well developed, but its forelimbs are well developed, so that it can can climb from the cloaca into its mother's pouch for further development.
This means that forelimbs were developed for a cause. Hence, I would go with E)
