were met with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "were met with" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate a reaction or reception to something. Example: The couple's objections were met with thunderous applause.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Ordóñez's comments were met with shrugs from Mets executives.

The New York Times - Sports

Clegg's remarks were met with cynicism.

The Guardian

These attempts were met with mixed success.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Her words were met with silence.

The New York Times - Magazine

They were met with considerable resistance.

The New Yorker

His comments were met with derisive laughter.

The Guardian - Business

These were met with harsh condemnations.

The Guardian - Opinion

Tough questions were met with raucous applause.

The Guardian

We were met with blank stares.

Harvard Business Review

Questions were met with blank stares.

The Guardian

Again, her remarks were met with applause.

The Washington Post

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "were met with", ensure that the subject clearly indicates what is encountering or receiving something. This provides clarity and avoids ambiguity in your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "were met with" when an active voice construction would be more direct and impactful. Passive voice can sometimes obscure who performed the action, leading to less engaging prose.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were met with" functions as a passive construction, indicating how an action, statement, or event was received. It often serves to highlight the reaction or consequence rather than the actor. Ludwig AI provides numerous examples showcasing this usage.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Academia

10%

Encyclopedias

5%

Less common in

Wiki

4%

Formal & Business

1%

Science

0.5%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "were met with" is a grammatically sound passive construction used to describe the reception or reaction to an action or event. As noted by Ludwig AI, it's commonly employed in news reporting, academic writing, and encyclopedic entries to objectively convey responses. While active voice may sometimes offer a more direct alternative, "were met with" remains a versatile option for emphasizing the outcome or sentiment generated. The phrase is very common across varied sources.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were met by

Slightly alters the structure while retaining the core meaning of encountering something.

received

Focuses specifically on how something was taken or accepted, emphasizing the reception aspect.

encountered

Emphasizes the act of facing or experiencing something, shifting the focus slightly from the reception to the event itself.

were confronted with

Emphasizes a direct and potentially challenging encounter.

faced

Highlights the act of confronting or dealing with something, often implying a challenge or difficulty.

elicited

Highlights the act of provoking or drawing out a specific reaction, different from simply encountering something.

were met

This shortened form is less descriptive than the original phrase, lacking the indication of what they encountered.

induced

Highlights the action of persuading or influencing someone or something.

brought about

Emphasizes causation and result.

sparked

Focuses on initiating or triggering something, such as a reaction or event.

FAQs

How can I use "were met with" in a sentence?

Use "were met with" to describe the reaction or reception to an action, statement, or event. For instance, "The proposal "was met with" skepticism" indicates that the proposal received a skeptical response.

What are some alternatives to "were met with"?

Depending on the context, you can use alternatives like "encountered", "elicited", or "received". The best choice depends on the specific nuance you want to convey.

Is it better to use "were met with" or an active voice construction?

While "were met with" is grammatically correct, active voice constructions are often more direct and engaging. Consider rewriting the sentence to emphasize the actor rather than the receiver of the action.

What's the difference between "were met with" and "were met by"?

"Were met with" typically refers to the reaction or consequence that followed an action, whereas "were met by" suggests an encounter or meeting with someone or something. For instance, "The protesters "were met by" police" indicates a direct encounter.