Why soften criticism?
In an academic or business review, it is important to identify the problem precisely and distinguish it from a judgement about the person. Direct This calculation is wrong may be appropriate for a verified error. For a debatable assessment, softer forms leave room for the author's explanation.
The aim is not to downplay a real problem or to sound polite at any cost. Softened language can identify a specific weakness just as clearly; it presents the assessment as something to discuss rather than a verdict.
One potential limitation is the narrow age range of the survey respondents.
One potential limitation is the narrow age range of the survey respondents.
This assesses a weakness in the study, not the people who carried it out.
The report could be strengthened by adding a short summary of the methodology.
The report could be strengthened by adding a short summary of the methodology.
The criticism immediately includes a specific suggestion instead of merely objecting.
Noun-based opening frames
“One potential limitation is…” and “A possible weakness lies in…” begin with an abstract noun (limitation, weakness) rather than an accusatory verb. The subject is the weakness itself, not the author or reader.
The adjectives “potential” and “possible” further soften the claim: they acknowledge a reviewer's judgement rather than an absolute fact. “Is” is usually followed by a noun phrase or a that-clause. “Lies in” takes a noun phrase or gerund rather than a complete clause with its own subject and verb.
One potential limitation is + noun phrase; or: One potential limitation is that + clause. A possible weakness lies in + noun phrase or -ing.
- V-ing / -ing —
- The verb form ending in -ing: working, going. Its role depends on the construction.
- NP / noun phrase —
- A noun phrase: a noun with its dependent words, such as the new student; the pattern treats it as one group of words.
- noun —
- A word naming a person, thing or idea: student, book, happiness.
- clause —
- A construction with a verb, often with its own subject: when I arrived. A non-finite clause may leave the subject unspoken: to get home.
One potential limitation is that the interviews were conducted only with current employees.
One potential limitation is that the interviews were conducted only with current employees.
“Is that” introduces a complete subordinate clause with its own subject and predicate.
A possible weakness lies in relying on a single reviewer for every submission.
A possible weakness lies in relying on a single reviewer for every submission.
“Lies in” is followed by the gerund “relying”, not a complete clause.
A modal frame: could be argued that… falls short of…
“It could be argued that…” introduces a claim as a position that could be advanced rather than an unquestionable fact. Modal “could” with passive “be argued” presents the argument as a possibility without identifying a particular critic.
After “that”, use the subject and predicate of an ordinary clause. This clause often includes the fixed expression “falls short of”, meaning fails to reach a required level. “Falls short of” takes a noun phrase or gerund, not a to-infinitive.
It could be argued that + [subject] + falls short of + [noun phrase / gerund].
- subject / S —
- The grammatical subject: who or what the clause is about; the verb agrees with it. In The book was written, the book is the subject, although someone else does the action.
- NP / noun phrase —
- A noun phrase: a noun with its dependent words, such as the new student; the pattern treats it as one group of words.
- noun —
- A word naming a person, thing or idea: student, book, happiness.
It could be argued that the pilot study falls short of establishing long-term effects.
It could be argued that the pilot study falls short of establishing long-term effects.
Falls short of takes the gerund “establishing”, not “to establish”.
It could be argued that the interface falls short of basic accessibility standards.
It could be argued that the interface falls short of basic accessibility standards.
Here “falls short of” is followed by a noun phrase, not a clause.
Suggesting improvement: could be strengthened by
A particularly useful feature of academic criticism is identifying not only a weakness but also how to address it. “…could be strengthened by + gerund” does this in one sentence. Its subject is the work being assessed (the report, analysis, or plan), not the author, and it sounds like advice rather than an order.
You can first name a weakness and then explain how to improve the work. In This argument could be strengthened by…, this refers to the argument to be strengthened, not to the weakness itself.
[Item] could be strengthened by + [gerund + object].
- object / O —
- Who or what an action affects: in I read a book, a book is the object.
The onboarding guide could be strengthened by adding screenshots for each step.
The onboarding guide could be strengthened by adding screenshots for each step.
If an action follows by, use an -ing form: adding. A noun phrase can also follow by.
This argument could be strengthened by citing at least one independent source.
This argument could be strengthened by citing at least one independent source.
“This” refers back to an argument mentioned earlier in the text.
Register: precise criticism and personal judgements
Is wrong identifies an error and may be appropriate if the error is explained. Is a mess sounds more conversational and vague, while clearly didn’t think it through attributes carelessness to the author. Assess the particular expression and context instead of treating every direct criticism as a personal attack.
Grammatical correctness, tone, and justification are different matters. Hedging can make an assessment more cautious, but it cannot replace a precise explanation. It also changes the claim's strength: possible limitation is weaker than a demonstrated error.
The dataset is way too small to mean anything.
The dataset is way too small to mean anything.
This is grammatical but overly categorical for a review; compare the next example.
One potential limitation is the small size of the dataset.
One potential limitation is the small size of the dataset.
This is a more cautious and narrower claim: it identifies the small dataset as a possible limitation without declaring all the results meaningless.
Depersonalising: criticise the work, not the person
All four frames avoid using “you” or “the author” as the subject. The work itself becomes the subject—“the study”, “the plan”, “the analysis”, “this argument”—or an abstract noun such as “limitation” or “weakness”. This is not politeness for its own sake: making the work the subject keeps attention on what can be corrected.
Compare “You forgot to check for outliers”, which attributes a mistake to a particular person, with “One potential limitation is the absence of an outlier check”, which identifies the missing check without naming someone to blame.
You should have included a control group.
You should have included a control group.
The subject is a particular person, and the statement sounds reproachful.
One potential limitation is the absence of a control group.
One potential limitation is the absence of a control group.
The subject is the limitation itself; the missing control group is identified without personal blame.
Limits: when hedging obstructs clarity
Softened language should not become so vague that the reader cannot identify the problem. “It could perhaps be suggested that certain aspects might possibly benefit from further consideration” is cautious but says almost nothing: the intended weakness is unclear.
One clear form of hedging and a concrete detail are usually enough. There is no fixed quota; the reader should see the problem itself rather than only a stack of cautious words.
It could perhaps be suggested that certain aspects might possibly benefit from further consideration.
It could perhaps be suggested that certain aspects might possibly benefit from further consideration.
Too many layers of hedging hide the weakness. Compare the specific “One potential limitation is the absence of a control group.”
Application: spoken feedback, letters, and code review
The same four frames work not only in written article reviews but also in spoken feedback at meetings, an editor's letter to authors, a pull request comment, or an assessment of a business plan. The object of criticism changes (article, code, plan), not the linguistic construction.
In a quick spoken exchange, the frame is often shortened to one phrase without a second advisory sentence: “One potential limitation here is the sample size”. Written feedback will often immediately add “…could be strengthened by…” with a concrete suggestion.
One potential limitation here is the sample size — could we look at expanding it?
One potential limitation here is the sample size — could we look at expanding it?
A spoken version uses a shorter frame plus a direct question instead of a second advisory statement.
This pull request could be strengthened by adding a couple of edge-case tests.
This pull request could be strengthened by adding a couple of edge-case tests.
The same frame is applied to code review rather than an academic paper.
Common mistakes
Incorrect:The proposal could be strengthened by add more data.
Correct:The proposal could be strengthened by adding more data.
By is a preposition here. Express the following action with an -ing form: adding, not add.
Incorrect:It could be argue that the model falls short of expectations.
Correct:It could be argued that the model falls short of expectations.
The modal passive requires the past participle argued rather than base-form argue.
Incorrect:The report falls short to provide sufficient evidence.
Correct:The report falls short of providing sufficient evidence.
To name the standard or result that is not reached, use fall short of + noun phrase or -ing. Fall short can also stand without this complement.
Incorrect:A possible weakness lies in the researcher didn't validate the tool.
Correct:A possible weakness lies in the failure to validate the tool.
After “lies in”, use a noun phrase or gerund, not a complete clause with its own subject and predicate.
Incorrect:One potential limitation are the small sample size.
Correct:One potential limitation is the small sample size.
The subject “one potential limitation” is singular, so the verb is singular is, not are, regardless of what follows.
Incorrect:It could might be argued that the design falls short of rigor.
Correct:It could be argued that the design falls short of rigor.
Do not put two modal verbs directly together as could might; choose one modal to convey the hedging.
Incorrect:The paper could be strength by adding examples.
Correct:The paper could be strengthened by adding examples.
After “could be” in this passive construction, use the past participle strengthened, not the noun strength.