Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(1)
I find it hard to argue with the first conclusion.
Similar(59)
The first conclusion agrees with a large body of existing data, but does not say anything specific about the possible function of such diversification.
Only the first conclusion was strongly supported with posterior probability of > 0.95.
The first conclusion: Nadal looked very different.
This proves the first conclusion.
The first conclusion is trivial.
This leads to the first conclusion.
This contradiction proves the first conclusion.
To verify this results, with regard to the second conclusion, a new simulation for this setup was carried out using Simulink in MATLAB.
With respect to the second conclusion, the study by Friesenecker and colleagues would have certainly profited from studying groups suffering from vasodilatory shock secondary to systemic inflammation.
The second conclusion is right.
More suggestions(2)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com