not supported by

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "not supported by" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that something lacks backing, evidence, or endorsement from a particular source or authority. Example: "The theory presented in the article is not supported by any credible research."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

That's just not supported by evidence.

The New Yorker

Not supported by M&B.

The Guardian - Business

"The allegations are not supported by facts".

The New York Times

They were not supported by underlying intelligence.

The New York Times

I'm not supported by the Russian government.

The New Yorker

This criticism is not supported by the FBI's murder data.

The Guardian

His claim was not supported by other Hamas officials.

The Guardian

"It is not supported by any cogent arguments.

The Guardian

But again, the argument is not supported by the facts.

The New York Times

But that belief was not supported by this study.

The New York Times

Faith is a belief not supported by evidence.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using the phrase "not supported by", ensure that you clearly specify what is lacking support (e.g., evidence, data, research).

Common error

Avoid using "not supported by" when there is only limited or inconclusive evidence. Instead, opt for phrases like "partially supported by" or "inconsistent with" to accurately reflect the situation.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "not supported by" primarily functions as a qualifier or refutation. As Ludwig AI suggests, it indicates a lack of evidence or validation for a particular claim or statement. Examples show it negating arguments, theories, or beliefs.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

39%

Science

36%

Formal & Business

14%

Less common in

Wiki

5%

Academia

3%

Reference

3%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "not supported by" is a common and grammatically sound construction used to express a lack of evidence or validation for a claim. Ludwig AI confirms its usability in written English. It's particularly prevalent in news, scientific, and business contexts, indicating its importance in evidence-based reasoning. When using this phrase, specify what lacks support and avoid overstating the case when evidence is merely limited. Alternatives include "not backed by" or "lacks evidence for". The phrase serves to challenge claims and promote critical analysis, making it a valuable tool in argumentation and academic discourse.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not backed by

Replaces "supported" with "backed", implying a lack of direct assistance or confirmation.

not corroborated by

Substitutes "supported" with "corroborated", highlighting the absence of confirming evidence.

not substantiated by

Emphasizes the lack of concrete proof or validation.

not borne out by

Indicates that evidence does not confirm or validate the statement.

lacks evidence for

Rephrases to focus on the absence of evidence directly related to the subject.

not validated by

Highlights the absence of formal approval or confirmation.

not justified by

Suggests that there is no sufficient reason or basis for the idea.

not confirmed by

Indicates a lack of verification or agreement with the subject.

not underpinned by

Emphasizes the lack of a solid foundation or basis.

not reinforced by

Suggests that additional evidence or support is missing.

FAQs

What does "not supported by" mean?

The phrase "not supported by" indicates a lack of evidence, proof, or endorsement for a claim, theory, or idea.

How can I use "not supported by" in a sentence?

You can use "not supported by" to express that an argument, claim, or belief lacks a solid foundation. For example: "The argument is "not supported by" any credible research."

What are some alternatives to "not supported by"?

Alternatives include phrases like "not backed by", "not corroborated by", or "lacks evidence for" depending on the specific context.

Is it better to say "not supported by evidence" or "not supported with evidence"?

"Not supported by evidence" is generally preferred, as "by" indicates the source or means of support, while "with" suggests accompaniment.