were not covered

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "were not covered" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that certain topics, items, or aspects were not included or addressed in a discussion, report, or document. Example: "The financial implications of the project were not covered in the initial proposal."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

But cigars were not covered.

The New York Times

Most risks were not covered at all.

The Economist

"My eyes were not covered," she said.

The New York Times

Legal supplements were not covered in the agreement.

The New York Times - Sports

The contract said these services were not covered by Medicare.

The New York Times

That meant they were not covered by the 1978 amnesty.

The Economist

Both campaigns complained that these associations were not covered enough.

The Economist

He said the assertion that the weapons were not covered by the law was "provably false".

The New York Times

If Ms. Terzian were not covered by a plan, either, she could take the same step.

The New York Times

"We should have been covered and we were not covered financially.

The Guardian - Arts

But the Tehran protests were not covered with rolling live coverage for hours at a time.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "were not covered", clearly specify what the subject is and what it was not covered by. This enhances clarity and avoids ambiguity for the reader.

Common error

Avoid using "were not covered" without specifying the context. For instance, instead of saying "Many things were not covered", specify "Many aspects of the budget were not covered in the initial report" to provide a clearer understanding.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were not covered" functions as a passive construction, indicating that a subject did not receive attention, inclusion, or protection. Ludwig AI confirms its common and correct usage in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

45%

Science

35%

Formal & Business

10%

Less common in

Wiki

5%

Encyclopedias

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "were not covered" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression to indicate exclusion, omission, or lack of inclusion. Ludwig AI confirms this with numerous examples across diverse fields, from news and media to science and business. While generally neutral in tone, its formality can shift based on context. For effective use, ensure clarity by specifying what precisely "were not covered" and by what. Alternatives like "were excluded" or "were omitted" can provide nuanced shades of meaning. Be mindful of avoiding overly broad statements to maintain precision and avoid ambiguity.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were excluded

Focuses on the act of being deliberately left out.

were omitted

Highlights the act of being left out, often unintentionally.

were not included

Emphasizes the absence of inclusion in a list or set.

were left out

Suggests being unintentionally overlooked or forgotten.

were not encompassed

Implies a broader scope was intended, but not achieved.

were outside the scope

Highlights that something was beyond the defined limits or boundaries.

were not addressed

Focuses on the lack of attention or discussion given to a particular topic.

were not taken into account

Highlights that something was not considered or factored in.

did not extend to

Suggests limitations in reach or applicability.

fell outside the purview

Indicates that something was beyond the responsibilities or authority of a particular entity.

FAQs

How can I use "were not covered" in a sentence?

You can use "were not covered" to indicate that certain items, topics, or aspects were excluded or not addressed in a particular context. For example, "The legal implications "were not covered" in the initial assessment."

What can I say instead of "were not covered"?

You can use alternatives like "were excluded", "were omitted", or "were not included" depending on the context.

Is it correct to say "was not covered" instead of "were not covered"?

The choice between "was not covered" and "were not covered" depends on whether the subject is singular or plural. Use "was not covered" for singular subjects (e.g., "The topic was not covered"), and "were not covered" for plural subjects (e.g., "The topics "were not covered"").

What's the difference between "were not covered" and "were not addressed"?

"Were not covered" implies that something was excluded or not included within a specific scope or context. "Were not addressed", on the other hand, suggests that something was not discussed or dealt with. For instance, "The safety concerns "were not covered" by the insurance policy" versus "The safety concerns "were not addressed" during the meeting".