Sentences with phrase «correct when»

I avoid these mistakes when writing and correct them when proofreading.

Provided leadership through effective communication of vision, active coaching and development while comparing sales results to goals and taking appropriate action to correct when necessary.

Business cards are an easy way to make sure you get key information correct when following up, such as the correct spelling of the interviewer's title, their exact position, and their email address.

Business cards are an easy way to make sure you get key information correct when following up, such as the correct spelling of the interviewer's name, their exact job title, and their email address.

Interviewers won't expect you to be 100 % factually correct when coming up with an answer on the spot, so feel free to be creative with your response as long as your assertions are plausible and delivered convincingly.

Transactions once initiated can not be retracted or cancelled so make sure you enter the correct When you are ready, click on «Generate Transaction».

But the Signatur T - Bar Hybrid Smartwatch was exactly correct when calculating the hours and minutes we slept.

It lets you chat with native speakers, have them correct you when you're wrong, and let you earn points by correcting other learners.

Clearly, it's worth it to purchase realistic amounts of auto insurance coverage so make sure that all of your numbers sound correct when you're buying insurance.

This is the two year period beginning with the date the policy goes in force during which a company can review the underwriting and pull additional records to make sure their underwriting decision was correct when you -LSB-...]

As a masculist activist it pains me to admit it, but this is a rare case of a «males are the worst at...» gender differences story being (at minimum) substantially correct when examined at depth.

«Congress had an opportunity to get this issue correct when it amended the statute in 1991, and some legislative history suggests the drafters of the 1991 amendments thought that they did so,?

Our goal is to make the research process for law professors as smooth and seamless as possible — not to interrupt the flow and correct them when they think of subscription databases like Westlaw or Lexis as «The Internet» or that they are free.

Many of the claims reported in this area could be avoided if lawyers took steps to confirm that the information given by the testator is correct when the will is being drafted.

If a piece of advice is correct when given, but later becomes obsolete due to a change in circumstances, is there a continuing duty to advise the recipient?

Over at Simple Justice, Scott Greenfield is correct when he cautions against taking this all too seriously.

This house is energy efficient and Don is correct when he says «It's just the right thing to do,» but as Miss Peggy Lee might have put it, «Is that all there is, to green?».

I believe he is also correct when he notes that «Mandating electricity retailers to source 80 percent of their power from renewables does not answer the question how that power might be produced, integrated into the grid, or who will do the work.»

and if so, do you plan ever to correct them when they make erroneous assertions to the contrary, in comments on your blog?

So you could say Food & Water Watch is technically correct when it tries to scare people by saying fracking fluids contain «toxic chemicals.»

As was pointed to me by a friend, I should have written that Willis Eschenbach is not correct when he writes the cases he cites to are cases opposing «settle and sue scams», but it understandable for a layman to think that they are.

The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn't limit emissions from the developing world.

I assume she may be reading what we write, and so she can correct me when I misrepresent her.

V. President Gore was correct when he called his movie, «An inconvenient Truth.»

I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change.

I may stumble as a skeptic of climate change policy and fall prey to bias, but I work hard to correct it when I recognize it.

If they win, it will not matter who is correct when the data is finalized 20 years from now.

Clearly, Svante Arrhenius (1896) was correct when he said that the greenhouse gas effect was not tested.

«It occurred to me...» Publius Cornelius was correct when he said the more corrupt the State, the more laws.

I knew I was correct when I observed the vehemence and venom with which people who disagreed with the theory were attacked.

He believed it to be correct when I last corresponded with him around 3 years ago.

Tom Vonk is correct when he says that the following statements are over-simplifications and need corrections (in caps): «CO2 absorbs AND EMITS the outgoing infrared energy and warms the atmosphere TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN IT WOULD HAVE WITHOUT CO2» — or — «CO2 traps part of the infrared radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE TO SPACE.

So let me state my opinion that Roger is absolutely correct when he writes «Observations of the real world behavior of the climate system provide the best tool for understanding how the climate system works.»

Now, Minister Kent is absolutely correct when he says that we should not «let anyone tell (us) that it's not an ambitious target.»

Harrison Schmitt made a mistake about Arctic sea ice having recovered in 2009 to 1989 levels (among many other fundamental mistakes) and he refused to correct it when his error was pointed out to him privately.

The warmer predictions and the above chart ARE proof that P.T. Barnum (or whomever said it) was correct when he said «There's a sucker born every minute.»

Correct when measured by mass.

So, he's probably almost always correct when he claims that what he's presented is factually correct and he may well present it honestly, if not as clearly as some might like, but what some will take from what he says is not necessarily what most would regard as a reasonable interpretation of the current situation.

While I think the pyramid is basically correct when it comes to the relative magnitude of harm that will likely occur in each area, what it doesn't convey is that the absolute level of harm would still be unacceptable, across the board, in the absence of strong climate policies.

However, if the discontinuity was cause by and old Liquid - in - Glass thermometer (which had experienced zero creep) being replaced with a new thermometer, then the appropriate correction would be to assume that the new thermometer was correct, and the old thermometer was correct when installed, and to scale the old thermometer readings down proportionally over the life of the old thermometer.

You also claim that McI and McK were correct when they showed that Mann's statistical method produces hockey stick shapes from trendless red noise but then you write «they would have a valid point in principle, but the critique would not matter in the case of the hockey - stick.»

So you haven't studied the evidence, but you take it at face value that someone who practices «normative science» is correct when he states that the case for atmospheric being a «boon» to calcifying marine life is equal if not more persuasive than the case that it will be harmful?

That equation is only correct when errors are random — i.e., the covariance between the errors in X and Y is zero.

My only defense is that, like the scientific endeavor itself, this is part of how I learn, and while I hope that people will correct me when I get something wrong, it has often been my experience that I will have to do this myself.

I'm less convinced that Wallach is correct when he asserts that ``... globalization goes far beyond products, companies, and jobs.

gavin is generally correct when he talks, but after that demolition of Adam's comments he gets extra bonus points.

Gerhard Richter was correct when he stated that the price tag is not necessarily proportionate to skill and artistic integrity (see also, Jack Vettriano..)

Curator Lisa LeFeuvre, one of this year's Turner Prize jurors, is correct when she observes that «all art resides in the realm of the political.»

Enwezor is correct when he promises that «Everywhere one turns, new crisis, uncertainty, and deepening insecurity across all regions of the world seem to leap into view.»

-LSB-...] Kohn is correct when he says that conversation happens around pieces of content, or social objects.