Exact(1)
Your two responses are that the programs aren't working (with no evidence for such sweeping dismissals by one who is so privileged) and then you emphasize that you are looking out for the taxpayers who fund these programs (the taxpayers are taking good care of you!) Have you no empathy or compassion whatsoever?
Similar(58)
The indications are that the program is working.
May, the chances are that the program will continue.
The principal findings are that the program has largely succeeded on both counts.
The clear implication is that the programs are failing, right?
Probably the best that can be expected is that the programs identify and nurture talent that is already there.
What matters, says Ahmad, is that the programs work, not that they give a wholly accurate picture of the brain.
The simple answer is that the programs are badly designed.
The hope is that the programs will reward quality without encouraging excessive spending.
"And my contention is that the program causes stable prices".
Nor is that the program's only benefit.
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