was lacking in

USAGE SUMMARY

"was lacking in" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe something that is not present or that something is inadequate. For example, "The report was lacking in accurate information."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

58 human-written examples

The atmosphere was lacking in vengeful feelings.

The New York Times - Sports

Not that anything was lacking in the presentation.

The New York Times - Arts

"Something like this was lacking in the city".

The New York Times - Arts

The education, though, was lacking in one crucial respect.

The New York Times - Magazine

By now, ours was lacking in both qualities".

The Guardian

But this inhibition was lacking in schizophrenic patients.

The New York Times - Science

Except for the fiery peppers, it was lacking in flavor.

The New York Times

The spinster who was our teacher was lacking in warmth.

Independent

Not that the race itself was lacking in drama.

The Economist

"It would be fair to say I was lacking in confidence".

The Guardian - TV & Radio

It wasn't merely too small: it was lacking in innovative features.

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was lacking in" to clearly and directly state what is missing or deficient. Ensure that the context makes it clear what the subject is missing and why it matters.

Common error

Avoid embedding "was lacking in" within overly complex sentence structures. Clear, direct statements are more effective. Instead of saying, "The proposal, which was lacking in several key areas, was ultimately rejected", try "The proposal was rejected because it was lacking in several key areas".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was lacking in" functions as a linking verb followed by an adjectival phrase, indicating a deficiency or absence of a specific quality or attribute. It connects a subject to a description of what it is missing, as illustrated by Ludwig's examples.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

55%

Science

25%

Formal & Business

10%

Less common in

Wiki

5%

Encyclopedias

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was lacking in" is a versatile and commonly used expression to denote deficiency or absence. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is grammatically correct and widely applicable across various contexts. While alternatives like "lacked" or "was without" exist, "was lacking in" offers a specific nuance, emphasizing that something is not entirely absent but insufficient. Be mindful of sentence structure and clarity to maximize its effectiveness in your writing. Its prevalence in News & Media sources highlights its neutrality and objectivity in pointing out shortcomings.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was deficient in

Indicates a deficiency or shortage in something.

was without

Implies the complete absence of something.

did not have

A straightforward way of saying something was missing.

was short on

Suggests a shortage or insufficient amount.

was devoid of

Emphasizes a complete absence of something, often in a metaphorical sense.

failed to include

Highlights the omission of something important.

was absent of

Indicates that something is not present.

needed more

Suggests something was insufficient and required an increase.

could have used

Suggests that something would have benefited from having something extra.

didn't offer

Indicates that something was not provided or available.

FAQs

How can I use "was lacking in" in a sentence?

Use "was lacking in" to indicate the absence or deficiency of something. For example, "The presentation "was lacking in" visual aids".

What are some alternatives to "was lacking in"?

Alternatives include "was deficient in", "was without", or "did not have". The best choice depends on the specific context.

Is it better to say "was lacking in" or "lacked"?

Both are correct, but "lacked" is often more concise. "The report lacked detail" is shorter than "The report "was lacking in" detail", but the latter can sometimes add emphasis.

What's the difference between "was lacking in" and "was devoid of"?

"Was devoid of" implies a complete absence, while "was lacking in" suggests something is missing or insufficient, but not necessarily completely absent. For instance, "The desert "was devoid of" vegetation" indicates no plants at all, whereas "The meal "was lacking in" flavor" suggests it had some flavor, but not enough.