Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
This being so, for some legal theorists, the first formulation above, that legal reasoning is reasoning about the law, is ambiguous between: (a) reasoning to establish the content of the law as it presently exists, and (b) reasoning from that content to the decision which a court should reach in a case which comes before it.
Similar(59)
Even more basically, it became necessary to establish what a reasoning has to be like to qualify as a proof.
This situation can occur of a simply connected subinterval of Using a parallel reasoning to that of case ( involving complete induction, one gets that since (3.7).
By a similar reasoning to the above, we obtain − h n = a ̲ m (4.17).
The county should apologize, not put out a bogus reasoning to explain their egregious actions.
By a similar reasoning to that of Theorem 3.1, we can prove the following theorem.
Then, by a similar reasoning to that of Case 2, we can prove the result.
By a similar reasoning to that of Theorem 3.2, we can show that (kappa(S_{n}^)< kappa(G)).
By a similar reasoning to that of Theorem 3.1, we can prove that (v_{b}) is in path (v_{3}-v_{a}).
In this case, for the AOIs definition, a similar reasoning to the one followed in [25] for coverage probability estimation is adopted.
On the other hand, (14) and (15) can be proven following a similar reasoning to that of Theorem 2 in [16].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com