Escape vs escape from

1. No. Yes.

2. I can't tell about the comma because what's there is nonsense. It says that having legs enables them to escape, but it goes without saying that a legless jerboa is doomed. The relative length of their front and back legs in itself does not enable escape, either—it merely compels a hopping gait. I am not sure what you want to say, so I can't propose a revision.

3. B

This is fine:

'There are 25 different species of jerboa. Jerboas have short front legs and long back legs which enables them to escape predators.'

Better (maybe):
Jerboas' short front legs and long back legs make them fast and agile runners enabling them to escape predators.'

Thanks for your help.

AlpheccaStarsThis is fine:'There are 25 different species of jerboa. Jerboas have short front legs and long back legs which enables them to escape predators.'

1.In your version you use 'enables'.Why?
2. '...which enable them to escape predators' is a defining relative clause, so it would be a suggestion that jerboas have other legs othe

nsfs21.In your version you use 'enables'.Why?

I debated about this. The combination of short front legs and long back legs can be thought of as a singular concept or feature unique to this species. .

The singular would be interpreted this way:
Jerboas have short front legs and long back legs. This enables them to escape predators.

The pl

Thanks,AlpheccaStars.

What about my inquiry about 'which',and the 'comma' ?

from is superfluous. no idea about (,) though.