diff --git a/_episodes/03-classification.md b/_episodes/03-classification.md
index f5ae9c3..cb48db6 100644
--- a/_episodes/03-classification.md
+++ b/_episodes/03-classification.md
@@ -127,10 +127,12 @@ We'll first apply a decision tree classifier to the data. Decisions trees are co
 
 
 Training and using a decision tree in Scikit-Learn is straightforward:
+
+**Note**: Decision trees sometimes use randomness when selecting features to split on, especially when working with data where splits could have equal information gain or in ensemble methods (like Random Forests) where random feature subsets are selected. Setting random_state ensures that this randomness is reproducible.
 ~~~
 from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier, plot_tree
 
-clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=2)
+clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=2, random_state=0)
 clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
 
 clf.predict(X_test)
@@ -179,7 +181,7 @@ from sklearn.inspection import DecisionBoundaryDisplay
 f1 = feature_names[0]
 f2 = feature_names[3]
 
-clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=2)
+clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=2, random_state=0)
 clf.fit(X_train[[f1, f2]], y_train)
 
 d = DecisionBoundaryDisplay.from_estimator(clf, X_train[[f1, f2]])
@@ -204,7 +206,7 @@ max_depths = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
 
 accuracy = []
 for i, d in enumerate(max_depths):
-    clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=d)
+    clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=d, random_state=0)
     clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
     acc = clf.score(X_test, y_test)
 
@@ -212,13 +214,14 @@ for i, d in enumerate(max_depths):
 
 acc_df = pd.DataFrame(accuracy, columns=['depth', 'accuracy'])
 
-sns.lineplot(acc_df, x='depth', y='accuracy')
+sns.lineplot(acc_df, x='depth', y='accuracy', marker='o')
 plt.xlabel('Tree depth')
 plt.ylabel('Accuracy')
 plt.show()
 ~~~
 {: .language-python}
 
+
 ![Performance of decision trees of various depths](../fig/e3_dt_overfit.png)
 
 Here we can see that a `max_depth=2` performs slightly better on the test data than those with `max_depth > 2`. This can seem counter intuitive, as surely more questions should be able to better split up our categories and thus give better predictions?
@@ -226,7 +229,7 @@ Here we can see that a `max_depth=2` performs slightly better on the test data t
 Let's reuse our fitting and plotting codes from above to inspect a decision tree that has `max_depth=5`:
 
 ~~~
-clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=5)
+clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=5, random_state=0)
 clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
 
 fig = plt.figure(figsize=(12, 10))
@@ -242,7 +245,7 @@ It looks like our decision tree has split up the training data into the correct
 f1 = feature_names[0]
 f2 = feature_names[3]
 
-clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=5)
+clf = DecisionTreeClassifier(max_depth=5, random_state=0)
 clf.fit(X_train[[f1, f2]], y_train)
 
 d = DecisionBoundaryDisplay.from_estimator(clf, X_train[[f1, f2]])
@@ -258,7 +261,6 @@ Earlier we saw that the `max_depth=2` model split the data into 3 simple boundin
 
 This is a classic case of over-fitting - our model has produced extremely specific parameters that work for the training data but are not representitive of our test data. Sometimes simplicity is better!
 
-
 ## Classification using support vector machines
 Next, we'll look at another commonly used classification algorithm, and see how it compares. Support Vector Machines (SVM) work in a way that is conceptually similar to your own intuition when first looking at the data. They devise a set of hyperplanes that delineate the parameter space, such that each region contains ideally only observations from one class, and the boundaries fall between classes.
 
@@ -310,4 +312,4 @@ plt.show()
 
 ![Classification space generated by the SVM model](../fig/e3_svc_space.png)
 
-While this SVM model performs slightly worse than our decision tree (95.6% vs. 98.5%), it's likely that the non-linear boundaries will perform better when exposed to more and more real data, as decision trees are prone to overfitting and requires complex linear models to reproduce simple non-linear boundaries. It's important to pick a model that is appropriate for your problem and data trends!
\ No newline at end of file
+While this SVM model performs slightly worse than our decision tree (95.6% vs. 98.5%), it's likely that the non-linear boundaries will perform better when exposed to more and more real data, as decision trees are prone to overfitting and requires complex linear models to reproduce simple non-linear boundaries. It's important to pick a model that is appropriate for your problem and data trends!