Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(3)
The following discussion and conclusion are based on 1) that all the criticisms raised against vascular conservatism by Carlquist (1969) are not applicable on our case because Carlquist even did not mention phloem or amphicribral bundles throughout the paper, 2) that our anatomy- and development-based conclusion is supported by other independent research (see below).
The uncertainties in this conclusion are based on the lack of information on dose-response relationship at reasonable, projected exposure levels and of studies examining end points of concern in sensitive species.
Finally, we strongly disagree with the authors' statement that " mebendazole and pyrantel are not any longer recommended for the treatment of hookworm infection"; again, the studies on which the authors formulate their conclusion are based on the evaluation of the cure rate, 7, 8 and therefore, for the reasons mentioned previously, not conclusive.
Similar(57)
Hayden claimed the Senate report's conclusion was based on "one email with one very bad-taste comment".
Second, the conclusions are based on one cognitive task only.
According to the chapter notes, this conclusion is based on the observation of one friend of the Kennedy family.
Once again, most of the authors' additional conclusions are based on this one faulty assumption.
This conclusion is based on biology.
This conclusion is based on more than onecase.
(Asked about evidence, Menon added that India's conclusion was "based on inference").
The conclusion was based on a review of 10,942 doctor visits by people with heart disease.
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