@zakariaJannane Ok yes interesting. I think u are basically saying the same idea as the correct AC. It’s necessary we get rid of any factors that might DISCOURAGE the new businesses from coming in, otherwise why would we conclude that the protection could help our economies? Alo doesn’t even want to come anymore because of the disdain. We aren’t getting that new business anymore, why would we get the tree protection that hurts lululemon? It seems like u are thinking of another potential necessary assumption maybe? U have got me thinking

sneaky

@jddaph Yes ive been waiting for someone to appreciate this comment

@jasminew12699 For real

? what's up with the lev 4 first passage ? Delete now

the "at least 25 mil" is what i missed

poe question easy

I am too smart for lsac

@TeklaCo wtf

if we had one endangered koala, and a splitter splits them, we have two endangered koalas

when an author makes a "concession" in his argument it's important to identify what they are actually conceding. Sibley isn't saying his method is wrong/incorrect for classifying species he is just agreeing that the species concept/argument is difficult because of the AMOUNT of different classifications

@VanillaCat or are you asking if the first article is supposed to be in present time? if so then yes i think that is fine.. but i think stronger evidence for sussex being submerged for at least 100yrs is that the "coins were lost with the Sussex in a storm in 1694." So even if it wasn't present time and it was like 1999 it would still count

@tyraimann no because 100 years haven't passed since 1970

brutal

death to all numbers ever

This is amazing. U should make them multiplayer and whoever loses gets reported to LSAC

@nycxchi Ok yes i agree

Amazing please make more. Fantastic

@vyusupov02970 I just thought there must be a difference in saying "components are xyz" vs "components include xyz"

B is suspicious because the conclusion can still be reached. lululemon goes bankrupt and we lose a ton of money but then Alo comes in and replaces them now we have way more money than before

i knew it!! ugh so stupid annoying hate

@nycxchi do u think higher or lower

@VanillaCat onto

i got this right but i think it should be at least lev 4

e is incorrect because we're asking about the behavioral change towards the kids, this AC only tells us that there's limited space available.. if this is true, we could still expect the beetles to keep killing to free up space for their own kids. we still haven't answered the question of WHY they stop