aw hell nawl

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

I need to go touch grass after this one

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!

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

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. 

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!

me!!

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