In this case, the answers that are crossed out in the thumbnail are the ones we crossed out in an earlier lesson in the module. Theoretically, based on the split strategy, you would have already ruled out those answers.

The group that doesn't like the term LHB doesn't disagree with the idea that there was a bombardment. They just think that the term LHB isn't accurate or completely representative of the phenomenon. Given that they note that it is the conclusion of a much longer period of bombardment, we can understand that they also agree that there was a sharp decrease in bombardment after this period, whether or not it's called the LHB. Hope this helps!

#feedback There is a typo in the subtitles at 2:07. It says "Laja" instead of "LawHub."

#feedback There is a typo in this lesson. It says "Contrast that with a better way evaluate this answer" when it should say "Contrast that with a better way to evaluate this answer."

Honestly, I think it just takes some time and getting comfortable with the strategies and thought processes that you're learning. I got really slow when I first started using new strategies and it took me a few weeks to get back up to the right speed.

Being a human (subset) is sufficient for being a mammal (superset), but not necessary for being a mammal. Being a mammal (superset) is necessary for being a human (subset), but not sufficient for being one.

Yes, but I might word it slightly differently. Being a teacher (subset) is sufficient for having a career (superset), but not necessary for having a career. Having a career (superset) is necessary to be a teacher (subset), but not sufficient for being a teacher.