deletions | additions       diff --git a/Discussion.tex b/Discussion.tex  index 9c1b0d9..4c3ae1c 100644  --- a/Discussion.tex  +++ b/Discussion.tex 
...
Even if temperature is the least influential parameter on stellar masses and radii in the asteroseismic scalings, we are at a level of precision where errors on temperature dominate the global asteroseismic results. In general, asteroseismic scaling laws tend to better match mean density measurements than surface gravity measurements because of the latter's temperature dependence. While a more in-depth ``peak-bagging'' analysis of individual oscillation modes is beyond the scope of this paper, we strongly suspect the oscillating star is Star 2.  \subsubsection{Surface gravity disagreement}  The asteroseismic $\log g$ measurement nearly agrees with those from ELC, yet all three are some 0.3 dex lower than the spectroscopic $\log g$ values, as can be seen in Table \ref{table2}. This discrepancy is similar to the difference found for giant stars by \citet{hol15}. They investigate a large sample of stars from the ASPCAP (APOGEE Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline) which have $\log g$ measured via spectroscopy and asteroseismology. They find that spectroscopic surface gravity measurements are roughly 0.2--0.3 dex too high for core-He-burning (red clump) stars and roughly 0.1--0.2 dex too high for shell-H-burning (red giant branch) stars. \citet{hol15} speculate the difference may be partially due to a lack of treatment of stellar rotation, and derive an empirical calibration relation for a ``correct'' $\log g$ for red giant branch stars only. However, the stars in KIC 9246715 do not rotate particularly fast ($v_{\rm{rot}} \sin i \simleq \lesssim  8 \ \rm{km \ s}^{-1}$, which includes a contribution from macroturbulence as discussed in Section \ref{parameters}), so we cannot dismiss this discrepancy so readily.