The phrase "agrees with the thinking" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when expressing alignment or concurrence with a particular thought process or idea.
Example: "Her conclusion agrees with the thinking presented in the latest research on climate change."
Alternatives: "aligns with the perspective" or "is consistent with the reasoning".
The report, like that of Terrebonne's "full" shelters, was incorrect, yet it agreed with the thinking of policymakers as Katrina stories grew less frequent on cable TV: though New Orleans could be rebuilt, its former inhabitants might be beyond saving.
John Nash, the Nets' general manager, does not agree with that thinking.
Years later, Carver said he agreed with the rebels' thinking that Diệm was doing poorly and needed to be replaced, saying he was "absolutely convinced" that a regime change was needed to "achieve American objective in Vietnam".
David A. Thomas, a Harvard Business School professor of organizational behavior who has studied diversity initiatives in large companies, agreed with that thinking.
Mr. Romney's campaign evidently agrees with this thinking: it pushed for an earlier date for the Nevada caucuses, according to reporting by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Des Moines Register, which were recently moved to Jan . 14from Feb. 18.
Given the above, we can speak in a way which agrees with some* others thinking.
I agree with the author in thinking that the Rev. William Oughtred was the first to suggest that calculations could be made more accurately and rapidly by sliding the edges of logarithmic scales together than by using compasses the method adopted by Gunter; but Oughtred had a poor opinion of this device, and rightly considered that his circular scale was a great improvement on it.
We agree with the importance of thinking about recent European isolates, and in that respect we point towards our recent article focusing exclusively on the genomic epidemiology of the Shigella flexnei 3a outbreak mentioned by the reviewer (Baker et al., 2015), and referenced within our paper as part of our response to revision 1.
