diff --git a/ea/ForecastingNewsletter/May2020.md b/ea/ForecastingNewsletter/May2020.md
index 35bf1c7..c64beaf 100644
--- a/ea/ForecastingNewsletter/May2020.md
+++ b/ea/ForecastingNewsletter/May2020.md
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ handicappers. Each judge was presented with a list of 88 variables culled from t
 > We see that accuracy was as good with five variables as it was with 10, 20, or 40. The flat curve is an average over eight subjects and is somewhat misleading. Three of the eight actually showed a decrease in accuracy with more information, two improved, and three stayed about the same. All of the handicappers became more confident in their judgments as information increased.  
 
 The study contains other nuggets, such as:
+
     - An experiment on trying to predict the outcome of a given equation. When the feedback has a margin of error, this confuses respondents. 
     - "However, the results indicated that subjects often chose one gamble, yet stated a higher selling price for the other gamble"
     - "We figured that a comparison between two students along the same dimension should be easier, cognitively, than a 13 comparison between different dimensions, and this ease of use should lead to greater reliance on the common dimension. The data strongly confirmed this hypothesis. Dimensions were weighted more heavily when common than when they were unique attributes. Interrogation of the subjects after the experiment indicated that most did not wish to change their policies by giving more weight to common dimensions and they were unaware that they had done so."