Is your data « qualitative » because the spikes are more or less tail and the slope is about the same? I might get a little bit of a fad if the « good deal » is somehow related to the word « qualitative. » If you use these phrases, you are not doing the best you can. That`s where I left and I used that word well, but only because I`m asking you all to do a good job. I can`t be quantitative. Let`s be honest, these sentences don`t make sense and, in my opinion, they have no place in the scientific literature. I used them in papers before realizing they have no value. If the agreement is good, tell us how much: use a number, an RMS, a percentage, etc. One researcher`s « good agreement » is the « non-converging » of another. Is your approval good for a picometer? Or, just because it`s better than the errors you saw when you collected the first data? While we are at it, we are moving the words « good » and « bad » away from the scientific literature in almost all cases. Science is not a place of value judgment. Judgments, of course. Opinions, observations and speculations are all correct when identified as such. (« We believe… is a perfectly legitimate way to start a sentence if you have to tell the reader that you don`t know something safe.) Either your data matches something or it`s not.

She accepts the simulation in the estimated uncertainty or she does not agree. This is consistent with Dr. X`s prediction in the 5% or not. None of us know what you think is a good deal or why, until you give us a number that we could replicate or understand. Результатов: 33. Точных совпадений: 33. Затраченное время: 125 мс . . Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, Больше.