ostensible breach

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "ostensible breach" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you want to describe a breach that appears to be true or real but may not be the case upon closer examination. Example: "The company faced an ostensible breach of contract, but further investigation revealed that all terms were met."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

60 human-written examples

The ostensible reason — get this!

The New York Times

At least, ostensible ones.

The Guardian

Data breach.

The New York Times

The ostensible reason: so-called Communist influence.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

His ostensible mandate was reform.

The New York Times

His ostensible crimes were espionage and terrorism.

The Washington Post

Breach Litig.

Columbia University

This breach is unnecessary.

The New Yorker

"Any breach gets bigger".

The New York Times

Another breach.

The Guardian

These 10 ostensible proofs are stated as follows.

University of California, Berkeley

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "ostensible breach" when you want to highlight that a violation appears to exist, but further investigation is needed to confirm its reality. It adds a layer of nuance, suggesting potential doubt or misinterpretation.

Common error

Avoid using "ostensible breach" if you already have definitive proof of a violation. The phrase is best suited for situations where the breach is suspected but not yet fully substantiated.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "ostensible breach" functions as a noun phrase, typically serving as the subject or object of a sentence. It denotes a situation where a violation appears to exist but may not be definitively confirmed. Ludwig confirms its grammatical correctness and usability.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

0%

Academia

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Science

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "ostensible breach" is a noun phrase used to describe a potential violation that requires further investigation. Ludwig AI confirms that it is grammatically correct and appropriate for use in various contexts, including news, academic writing, and business communication. While not a very common phrase, it serves a useful purpose in expressing uncertainty about a possible violation. Related phrases include "apparent violation" and "alleged infraction", offering alternative ways to convey a similar meaning. When using this phrase, it's important to avoid assuming certainty prematurely and to use it appropriately when there is a genuine need for further investigation.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

Apparent violation

Replaces "breach" with "violation", focusing on the act of breaking a rule or agreement.

Seeming transgression

Uses more formal language to suggest a possible wrongdoing.

Alleged infraction

Highlights the claim of a breach, implying it may not be proven.

Supposed contravention

Emphasizes the questionable nature of the breach.

Presumed violation

Indicates that the violation is assumed but not confirmed.

Nominal infringement

Indicates a minor or technical violation.

Surface-level violation

Focuses on the immediate appearance of the violation.

Outward breach

Focuses on the external appearance of a violation.

Evident breach

Highlights the clarity of the breach at first glance.

Plausible violation

Suggests that the breach is believable but not necessarily factual.

FAQs

How to use "ostensible breach" in a sentence?

You can use "ostensible breach" to describe a situation where a violation appears to have occurred but needs further investigation. For example, "The company faced an ostensible breach of contract, but further investigation revealed that all terms were met."

What can I say instead of "ostensible breach"?

You can use alternatives like "apparent violation", "seeming transgression", or "alleged infraction" depending on the context.

When is it appropriate to use the term "ostensible breach"?

It's appropriate when you suspect a violation has occurred but lack concrete evidence. It implies a need for further investigation to confirm or deny the alleged infraction.

What's the difference between "ostensible breach" and "actual breach"?

"Ostensible breach" indicates a potential or apparent violation, whereas "actual breach" confirms that a violation has definitively occurred. The former suggests uncertainty, while the latter implies certainty.