Ready? Go! This is not a very exciting challenge to recap. The questions include the number of pieces used in a couple of challenges, the number of days since the mutiny, and the number of people on the jury. Jonathan is the first to start untying, then Ozzy and Yul, then Parvati...basically, everybody starts unwinding, but there's a lot of guessing going on, and the first person to get a key is Parvati, which is how you know it wasn't very hard. She moves on to the next round. Adam has a key next. Then Jonathan. So it's Parvati, Adam, and Jonathan in the next round.
The next round works a lot like the last one, only when you get your key, you use it to open up a tunnel you crawl through; then you scamper over some pontoons, and only then can you raise your flag. The questions include the number of immunity challenges so far, the number of people at the lamb shank feast, and the number of flags in the barrel-rolling. Easier than the first one, I think. Adam is the first to start untying, and he completes the whole deal, and it's not ever close, although Parvati eventually gets the right answer, and Adam wins immunity. Jeff reminds them that they have to send someone home, and sends them back to camp.
Back from commercials, we are at camp. Candice tells us that with Adam having immunity, she's probably going home, and she finds it "upsetting" that Jonathan will go farther in the game than she will. She claims that "everyone feels" that "Jonathan is a snake," and therefore, it's terrible that he's lasting in the game. Now...what, exactly, is the meaning of "snake" in this context such that it has anything to do with whether you should go forward in the game? Does "snake" just mean, literally, "good player"? Does it mean "someone who said he would do one thing and did another"? Because...as mentioned above, that's exactly what Candice did when she (1) sat at Aitu pretending to be aligned with Yul and friends when she wasn't; and (2) went with the mutiny. I didn't begrudge her either of those things, though they were foolish play, and I can't imagine what Jonathan has done that would support moral outrage. At all. These are the situations where I wish there were a more adversarial figure who could halt an interview like this and be like, "What are you talking about, crazypants?"