I'm no professional by any means LOL but mine is formatted with a header (My first and last on the left, LSAC number in the middle, and then on the right "Personal Statement" with page numbers). After that it's just formatted like a college essay. Double spaced, indent before every paragraph, times new roman font! No title or anything. I applied with it last cycle and it worked fine for me!

I hate this question I hate this question I hate this question

Just putting the explanation in my own words here! E is wrong is because if we are limiting both bees to going to only cranberry crops, then we have no clue if the honeybees will be more efficient. They are less efficient because they fly over a bigger area and visit way more species than bumblebees, but we can't say what happens when we limit their area to just cranberries. 

@lagata Computers can be made faster without their chips being made smaller :)

me!!

I think the difficulty that comes from this question is how we are supposed to interpret the AC. When I first read it, I thought it was irrelevant because why do we care what happened the year before? Even if it was abnormally high, it still went down, so why would this be a flaw?

But, when you read "abnormally high", the way you get this correct is when you interpret it as "fatalities were just abnormally high in general". Abnormal for this specific highway in comparison to every other year, not just from the viewpoint of these two specific years. Then that makes this AC make sense

Just thinking out loud here :) Maybe this will help someone out!

@emmalc02 Hey! So I initially got this wrong the first time but got it right during BR and something that helped me was plugging in things from the stim into AC D. For example:

treats evidence that someone will adopt a particular course of action =

treats evidence that Marion will adopt (what course of action is this referring to? must be driving because she's not taking the train and is gonna be late according to the sim)

okay so back to my version: treats evidence that Marion will drive as though that evidence excluded the possibility of an alternative action (wait what's the alternative action? has to be taking the train)

so back to my version: treats evidence that Marion will drive as though that evidence excluded the possibility of her taking the train. Yes! this matched my initial thought when I was reading of "um just because she hates it doesn't mean she won't do it"

I struggle with ACs that have lots of referential phrasing too so this helps me a lot after I can narrow it down to 1 or 2 options! :)

I completely skipped over D because I thought "even if they left the sap until the water evaporated, the sugar concentration is still going to be the same. So they are still going to have to drink a lot of it to get a good amount of sugar????" But now I see that she's saying they would have to drink a lotttt of the sap (water and sugar, mostly water so hella water) and D is saying no no, they can drink less of the sap and still get sugar. I think I just leaned way too far into the sugar concentration part and messed myself up

@jackghenriquez1 Take this with a grain of salt because I don't really know if this is the correct way of thinking lol -

I initially was between C and E and ended up picking E (ugh). Before I listened to the explanation I was trying to figure out why it was wrong on my own and something I realized was the phrasing "noniatrogenic disease" (AC) vs. all other causes (Stimulus). The stim says all other causes and I think that I was wrong to initially assume that "all other causes combined" also meant noniatrogenic diseases. Meaning E wasn't descriptively accurate :)

aw hell nawl

I need to go touch grass after this one

See where I went wrong with B was in my head I thought of it as "If there is no heavy metal even present, how are we supposed to prove that the bacterias exposure to the HM promotes their resistance to antibiotics" when I should have looked at it as "No HM, no resistance" = if there is no heavy metal, then there can't be resistance which helps the argument

@joannaw So here I read it as these oral myths survived and nothing else instead of reading it as oral myths survived only because of blah blah blah. It's like saying "She was the only person in the room" vs. "She can only be in the room if there are other people there" Just my two cents! I hope this helps!