# à au moins 95% par rapport à l’autre cible

#### Stagiaire

##### Member
Hello again!

I am currently translating market research presentation and am having difficulty with the following phrase:
"Significativement plus élevé à au moins 95% par rapport à l’autre cible" Significantly higher to at least 95% in relation to the other target

As a whole sentence I am at a loss to understand it!

In context it is a note at the bottom of a graph introduced by the following:
"Nous avons systématiquement analysé les résultats de l'étude selon les critères suivants (significativités testées à 95% sur échantillons ≥30)......"
We have systematically analysed the results of the study according to the following criteria (

And here again I become stuck!

Any help much appreciated!

Moderator note: The part from "In context it is a note..." has been put into another thread. It is left in here for the context. If you can help Stagiaire with the second sentence, please answer in that thread.

• #### Matamoscas

##### Senior Member
Without knowing the target, it conveys very little, but I think your translation is correct except that I would substitute by for to: Significantly higher, BY at least 95%, in relation to the other target.

I find this makes sense.

#### le chat noir

##### Senior Member
Yuck... The guy who wrote this should be spanked to death with "le bon usage de la langue française", for starters.

With such an appalling material, I think the only way out of trouble is to make out what the heck the guy meant, and rephrase it as a whole.

Ok, let's go...

"plus élevé à au moins 95%" is not even gramatically correct. No wonder you can't translate it!

The proper form would be something like "xxx[some statistical value, I guess] est significativement plus élevé(e). Il/elle dépasse l'autre cible de 95%".

"analyser les résultats de l'enquête" sounds silly: it boils down to analyze an analysis. I would rather say:
"nous avons systématiquement utilisé les critères suivants pour exploiter les résultats de l'enquête :
- significativités testées à 95% (God strike me pink if I know what that may mean)
- nombre d'échantillons supérieur à 30"

Hope this helps. Good luck .

#### Stagiaire

##### Member
Ok, after much debate (in many languages!) I have ascertained that this relates to a statistical significance test and is something to do with having 95% confidence that there is a significant difference. Donc, what do we think of "significant difference from the other target (95% accurate)"?

#### le chat noir

##### Senior Member
Ok, I think this refers to the statistical confidence factor (having enough samples to assume data are representative of a larger population).

It's difficult to tell with the elements I have, but I think we face two different notions here:

1) statistical data

some marketting survey yelds results such as "40% of the potential customers like pink bananas". Such numbers are statistical data.

Now if there were only 5 answers to this question (do you like pink bananas?), the number of answers would not be high enough to have confidence in the result (if you see only 5 cars at a crossroad and 2 of them are blue, it is not enough to say 40% of the cars in France are blue).

2) confidence factor and number of samples

this number measures the confidence you can have in a statistical measure. Basically, the more answers to a survey, the higher the confidence factor. In the case of our bananas, the confidence factor would be so low (let's say 10%) that the statistic would be considered meaningless.

For instance you could say "the surveys show that 40% of the customers like pink bananas with a confidence factor of 10%".

Now take a deep breath. Here the aim is to decide whether you will try to sell rather pink or green bananas. So you want to compare statistics. (40% like pink bananas, 60% like green bananas, let's try to sell more green bananas).

But before trying to do such comparisons, you have to analyze the raw survey data to prune the non-significant results. The first thing you will do is reject data with a low connfidence factor (in your case, anything < 95%). Since other more subtle factors may cause the confidence factor to be very high even though the number of samples is not sufficient to be sure the information is significant, it is customary to also reject data based on too small a number of samples (in your case, anything based on less than 30 samples).

So you will say "40% - 60%" is a 20% difference, that is significant. But I made sure the informations I just compared had a sufficient confidence factor (> 95%) and a sufficient number of samples (> 30) (or else the comparison would have been pointless).

Finally, with this in mind, I propose "the analysis retained only significant differences between survey data with a confidence factor > 95% and based on at least 30 samples"

LOL that made me think hard remembering my math classes, but I hope that covered the issue .

#### Stagiaire

##### Member
Thanks a lot, I think I get it now.

#### le chat noir

##### Senior Member
Don't forget to spank the author with his own survey analysis after you're done with the translation .

#### Stagiaire

##### Member
I shall endeavor to do so!

< Previous | Next >