deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 1831528..141571a 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
A significant analysis was also performed on the errors on the local group data reported by \cite{Weisz_2014}. These errors were calculated using methods defined in \cite{Dolphin_2012} (systematic) and \cite{Dolphin_2013} (random) but are considered extremely conservative. A method to determine a more reasonable set of uncertainties was not found and so we adopt the convention used in a later paper by Weisz \cite{Weisz__2014} and simply apply a 50\% fractional uncertainty to all masses. This method is also considered conservative but significantly improves on the original.  \textbf{Comparison} \\  Having made the corrections discussed above, we compare the data sets. We find that the \cite{Tomczak_2014} data tends to be within the (large) error bars on of  the local group data. Compared to this data set, the local group data underestimates the rate of growth at all masses and reshifts by ~0.3 dex dex. However, we find that the \cite{Whitaker_2014} data is significatly different to both other data sets.  \textbf{Conclusion} \\  While we have done most of the corrections needed to compare these data sets, there is still work to do. In particular, work will be needed to explain the discrepancy between the \cite{Whitaker_2014} data and the other two data sets. A significant amount of work will also be needed to write up and present this work.