Original sentence: Donohue and Levitt responded by arguing that their original estimates should have been done differently and that doing it this new way turned out to not reverse or completely eliminate the link that they had originally shown.Foote and Goetz proposed revisions to Donohue and Levitt's methods indicated that violent crime went up, not down, from abortion and there was no change in property crime.In November 2005, two Federal Reserve Bank of Boston economists published a working paper which argued that the results in Donohue and Levitt's abortion and crime paper were due to statistical errors by the authors - in particular the omission of certain statistical controls, and the use of the total number of arrests and not the arrest rate in explaining changes in the crime rate
Edited sentence: " When Donohue and Levitt's estimates were done the way they said they should have been violent crime went up, not down, from abortion and there was no change in property crime.However, Donohue and Levitt responded by arguing that their original estimates should have been done differently and that doing it this new way turned out to not reverse or completely eliminate the link that they had originally shown.In November 2005, two Federal Reserve Bank of Boston economists published a working paper (Foote and Goetz 2005 ) which argued that the results in Donohue and Levitt's abortion and crime paper were due to statistical errors by the authors - in particular the omission of certain statistical controls that Donohue and Levitt had claimed to have used and using the total number of arrests and not the arrest rate in explaining changes in the crime rate