The prehistoric tetrapod could sever its limbs to escape predators and then regrow the limbs afterwards, just as the modern salamander does. A salamander can regrow a lost limb in three to four weeks. However, although the physiology of the prehistoric tetrapod was similar to that of the modern salamander, the prehistoric tetrapod was proportionally larger, meaning it needed more nutrients to rebuild body mass. Further, the oxygen-rich atmosphere of the prehistoric tetrapod’s era led to faster cell-death, slowing the growth of new tissue.
PH Tetrapod could sever its limbs and regrow , modern salamander can also do the same in 3 to 4 weeks time..
PH tetrapod was larger and there was oxygen rich atmosphere led to faster cell death and slow growth of new tissue...
The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?
A. If the prehistoric tetrapod regenerated their limbs faster than the modern salamander does, it would have been more effective at escaping even its strongest predators.
there is no direct relation b/w regeneration and effectiveness in escaping predators
B. After the prehistoric tetrapod severed its limbs to escape predators, the new limbs it grew were usually proportionally larger than the originals were.
this cannot be derieved from the given argument..
C. The limbs of the prehistoric tetrapod, if severed in an attempt to escape a predator, would have taken more time than the limbs of the modern salamander to regenerate. yes , this is true to fact stated in the argument and correct option
D. The prehistoric tetrapod was at a much greater risk of falling prey to a predator than the modern salamander is.
there is no such information given in the premise..
E. Severing its limbs was not the only means the prehistoric tetrapod had for evading predators.
in correct option as the same cannot be said from the given argument ..
OPTION C is correct