Leatherbacks, the largest of the sea turtles, when subjected to the conditions of captivity, are susceptible to a wide variety of fatal diseases with which they would never come in contact if they lived in the wild.
Given that ...
Captive leatherbacks are exposed to fatal diseases they'd never encounter in the wild.
How can it be that ...
The likelihood of reaching maximum life expectancy is about the same in captivity and in the wild?
Evaluate
We're told there's something worse / life-shortening about living in captivity.
So if max life expectancy is the same for captive vs. wild, then we either need to hear: - something good / life-elongating about captivity - something bad / life-shortening about the wild - these fatal diseases that become a risk on captivity are not actually shortening the lives of any leatherbacks
Goal
I'd be looking for a distinction between captivity and the wild, something GOOD about captivity or BAD about the wild, when it comes to life span.