Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(7)
Both of these explanations are valid and important.
Some of these explanations are valid, but all are ultimately inadequate.
Perhaps both explanations are valid and complementary, as the attractiveness measure adopted in this research groups the effects on developers and users together (downloads and membership numbers), and only future research can sort this out.
The present data do not allow us to disentangle whether only one or both of these explanations are valid and future studies are necessary to directly address this issue.
Once again both possible explanations are valid.
If both explanations are valid for different students to varying extents, then we may find no (or weak) correlations between structural features and assessment of learning outcomes, as well as no (or weak) changes in structural features over the semester.
Similar(53)
Ultimately each of these explanations is valid and beside the point.
Experiments showed that neither explanation was valid.
This qualitative explanation is valid for all CaO derived CO2 sorbents.
Based on our numerical survey for (A), we found that the dissipation inside the numerical shock wave structure (where no physical or mathematical explanation is valid) must be proportional to Mach number, in contrast to Mach independent dissipation provided by conventional AUSM fluxes.
The same explanation is valid for the argumentation of the difference in effectiveness between the LM and CS series.
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