patently deficient

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "patently deficient" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe something that is clearly or obviously lacking in quality, effectiveness, or completeness. Example: "The report was patently deficient in its analysis, failing to address key issues."

✓ Grammatically correct

Human Resources for Health

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

1 human-written examples

It makes no sense to expect health workers to perform well in circumstances where the equipment and resources are patently deficient.

Human Resources for Health

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

59 human-written examples

Patently untrue.

The Guardian - Sport

"Yin deficient.

The New Yorker

Argentina patently.

The Guardian - Sport

Patently, that's progress.

The Economist

"That's patently obvious.

The New York Times

This is patently untrue.

The New Yorker

This was patently absurd.

The New York Times

That is patently unsustainable.

The Economist

This was patently false.

The New Yorker

This is patently unfair.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "patently deficient" when you want to emphasize that something's inadequacy is obvious and easily discernible. It adds a layer of formality and critical assessment to your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "patently deficient" in casual conversations or informal writing. Its formal tone might sound overly critical or pretentious in such settings; consider using simpler alternatives like "obviously lacking" or "clearly inadequate" instead.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "patently deficient" functions as an adjectival phrase, modifying a noun to indicate that something is obviously and undeniably lacking or inadequate. Ludwig examples show its use in assessing the quality of resources and the truthfulness of claims.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

50%

Science

50%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "patently deficient" is used to describe something that is clearly and obviously lacking. As Ludwig AI points out, it is grammatically correct and usable in written English. Although relatively infrequent, it appears in contexts ranging from human resources to news and media. It is most appropriate for formal writing where a critical assessment is required and carries a tone of strong disapproval for something lacking the required quality.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

patently insufficient

Replaces 'deficient' with 'insufficient' to express inadequacy.

conspicuously deficient

Similar to glaringly inadequate, but uses 'deficient'.

clearly inadequate

Emphasizes the insufficiency in a more direct manner.

obviously lacking

Highlights the readily apparent absence of something.

glaringly inadequate

Highlights the conspicuous or obvious nature of the inadequacy.

plainly insufficient

Stresses a clear lack of what is needed.

transparently inadequate

Indicates that the inadequacy is easily seen or understood.

manifestly inadequate

A more formal alternative, indicating a clear and undeniable lack.

undeniably flawed

Focuses on the presence of defects that cannot be disputed.

flagrantly lacking

Emphasizes a blatant or outrageous absence.

FAQs

How to use "patently deficient" in a sentence?

You can use "patently deficient" to describe something that is obviously lacking or inadequate. For example, "The report was "patently deficient" in its analysis, failing to address key issues".

What can I say instead of "patently deficient"?

You can use alternatives like "clearly inadequate", "obviously lacking", or "plainly insufficient" depending on the context.

Is "patently deficient" formal or informal?

"Patently deficient" is considered a formal phrase. In informal contexts, consider using simpler alternatives such as "clearly inadequate" or "obviously lacking".

Which is correct, "patently deficient" or "obviously deficient"?

Both "patently deficient" and "obviously deficient" are grammatically correct, but "patently deficient" carries a stronger sense of formality and emphasizes the clear and undeniable nature of the deficiency. Consider "obviously deficient" for less formal situations.