Sentences with phrase «do the analysis correctly»

To do the analysis correctly, we need to use data that are more apples - to - apples.

I to only has meaning if you've done the analysis correctly and that is impossible to tell from your comment.

Not exact matches

Let's go back to Economics 101, and see why their analysis is incorrect and what would have been required to do it correctly.

However, this is not as easy as it sounds and you have to do a lot of background research on the two given currencies and correctly use the analysis tools to determine the general trend in their values over recent times.

That said, a simple cost - benefit analysis does not correctly measure the environmental costs of dumping plastics or cutting down more trees for paper products.

According to a summary statement prepared by Dennis Hartman to try to clarify the situation for the media and government, the decline is quite evident when the analysis is done correctly.

AND, just like no other diet is the same as The Weston A. Price Foundation principles, most people and doctors do not read the hair analysis correctly.

If you look at the differences and the similarities between Tonal and Seasonal Color Analysis you'll see that there is little difference between the methods and, done correctly, both will provide an extremely indepth and effective color aAnalysis you'll see that there is little difference between the methods and, done correctly, both will provide an extremely indepth and effective color analysisanalysis.

Hopefully the investment banks with their swap books have done their counterparty analyses correctly, and didn't cross hedge too much.

I think the biggest mistake that most investors make is that they don't know how to correctly assess intrinsic value through discounted cash flow analysis.

He said that, if done correctly, the Lindzen - Choi analysis would have produced a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit warming instead of the 0.9 degree warming the paper initially contained.

So, correctly done, the reviewer's own analysis validates the very manuscript that the reviewer called a «waste of time.»

The analysis is powerless, when done correctly.

If I remember correctly Doug Keenan is not criticising the quality of the work done by the researchers — far from it — he held it in high regard, and strongly felt that the data series should be available to all for further analysis.

If you had repeated the analysis and not found the three peaks, you could correctly argue that you repeated the analysis, did not find the three peaks I was talking about and the paper could not be published.

Thus the analysis doesn't tell at all, whether the longer term variability is presented correctly by the models.

You said «I don't understand why you claim that these are «correctly processed» and I should somehow redo my analysis.»

It may well be that whoever did this analysis did it correctly based on the information they had — the problem is that it is impossible to have complete information to input into the calculation.

Personally, I think it will be pretty clear upon looking at 10 or 20 % of the sites whether Anthony's new Leroy 2010 scores are done correctly, and that evaluation of the statistical analysis should not wait for a re-scoring of all the sites.

I did not correctly remember the IPCC analysis (a summary of the studies looking at mitigation costs).

I this case, he over-reaches and uses innuendo - style smears to point out that BEST is wrong, while not admitting to the fact he did not do the GISS analysis correctly.

However, error analysis first conducted by Richard Tol, and then done correctly by Cook and others in their response to Tol clearly show that there are more errors in the opposite direction.

If you wish to argue with the assumption that pre-1935 data is representative of the unperturbed system (as I think eduardo is suggesting, if I understand him correctly), or if you think there is some error in VS's analysis, then please do explain.

Now I know that «to model the underlying mechanism correctly» is easier said than done, I actually find this the hardest part of statistical analysis.

In my field of biology, we commonly consult and / or collaborate with statisticians in order to help ensure the analysis is done correctly; I can't imagine that such a practice would harm climate research.

If I understood VS correctly (don't be too harsh on me if not) there's a way to detect such behaviour in data by applying some time series analysis procedures.

While the Court correctly acknowledged that «employment» should be interpreted in a way that was consistent «with the generous, aspirational purposes set out in s. 3», the Court does not go about this analysis.

When purchasing an investment property, many first time investors don't take the time to correctly perform financial analysis on the deal and check that their chosen property is right for their portfolio.