The conclusion on page 15 on H3K9me2 domains 'extend to active enhancers targeted for silencing, which accounts for coenrichment with H3K27ac' implies a causal relationship for which there is no data.
It must also be noted that the phrase '…and how it should be assed' in the Conclusions section on page 9 should instead read '…and how it should be assessed'.
Of particular concern in this regard is the high level conclusion statement on page ES-6 that "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States".
Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114.
The very same JUSTICE GINSBURG -- If I had looked in the conclusion, the paragraph on page 37-A where they summarize what they said, there's nothing there about the Florida Constitution, it is only about the Florida election code.
When Page*strain was not significant, further conclusions were drawn based on Page, Pstrain or both.
Conclusions and policy recommendations On page 11, the final recommendation appears too presumptuous about the private sector's responsibility in the spread of the NCD epidemic.
Her one fault seems to be that she always reads the ending first, which, of course, the reader of this book can do without even turning to Page 323 because there is only one possible conclusion to a book that on Page 7 says, "Let me go back to the beginning, or rather the beginning of the end, to before Mom's diagnosis, when she started to get sick and we didn't know why".
Likewise, I also find it necessary to illustrate the conclusions by Janko et al. on page 7 to 8 because readers being less familiar with statistics (as one would expect from a journal like Biology Direct) will again not be able to follow these discussions.
