A newborn kangaroo, or joey, is born after a short gestation

Question

My answer is (D).

Reason:
Premise:Young kangaroo's forelimb developed--> crawled into mother's pouch for FURTHER development.
Premise:Marsupital lion's forelimb developed.
Conclusion: They must have climed to mother's pouch.
This will be true only if it had not its hind limb developed.
 Coice (D) addresses this. If we prephase this choice, if the lion's hind limb were developed it couldnt have climbed to mother's pouch. This asserts that young lion's hindlimb was not developed. This is the assumption required for the young lion to climb to mother's pouch.
If we negate this option:
 "Newborn marsupial lions that crawled into their mothers’ pouches could also have done so had they not had only their forelimbs developed at birth." - they could have climbed even if hind limb developed.

then  hypothesis that newborn marsupial lions must also have needed to climb into their mothers’ pouches. -would have been weakened , becasue if hindlibs were developed they did not NEED to to that as they do not need any FURTHER DEVELOPMENT as was the case with the young kangaroo.

gmatfighter12 · Answer

This one took me 2:30 sec, is it too slow for this type of question?

spartacus1412 · Answer

thought it was D..now E seems correct

dexerash · Answer

IMO D is the correct answwer... :confused!

alchemist009 · Answer

could anyone please explain the answer further? how do i eliminate other choices here?

divineacclivity · Answer

The answer is E; visit the following link for an explanation:
https://www.f1gmat.com/newborn-kangaroo-or-joey

I'm still confused between D and E and D sounds only better of the two to me for the reason below:

E would’ve sounded better if it was slightly different:

[E] Newborn marsupial lions would not have had only their forelimbs developed if this development were *not for climbing to the lion’s pouch* instead of “of no use to the marsupial lions.”
or had this option been like the one below:
[E] Development of the forelimbs is NOT/NEVER for any other purpose.
I rejected option E with an understanding that it is too extreme to say “of no use to M. lions”. They could’ve had developed forelimbs for some other purpose. So, the person arguing must think that “development of forelimbs” is NOT for any OTHER purpose i.e. is for the SOLE purpose of climbing to the pouch.

(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.

D is also a weak statement for an assumption since it says “they couldn’t have crawled to the pouches if they didn’t have developed forelimbs” –> this doesn’t necessarily mean that they did use their forelimbs for climbing/crawling to pouches i.e. developed forelimbs might be a necessary criteria but not a sufficient one.

So, between E & D, I picked D since E was too extreme

Experts, Please help me here. Thanks in advance.

arnabs · Answer

i was quickly down to D and E.
On carefully reading D, one would notice that it states about marsupial lions being capable of crawling into their mothers' pouches with their forelimbs. it already takes this fact into consideration that marsupial lion mothers have pouches.
E states that one would not have a matured body part unless that part is matured to be put into use.

the crux of the argument is that one can climb into pouches if it has matured forelimbs.
hence E for me.

A newborn kangaroo, or joey, is born after a short gestation

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards