Sometimes, sentences in a research paper start sounding like a series of pronouncements:
Some structures contain more than one n-cornered group, possibly a di- or tri-cornered group. One or more of such groups can be removed, resulting in simpler structures. No significant information is lost.
For readers, who are trying to learn how the paper contributes to the literature, it is not always obvious what each statement is: Is it a finding? An assumption? Common knowledge? Something new? A crucial point? A minor detail?
If we were to rewrite the same paragraph to include a label, here is what it might look like:
Some structures contain more than one n-cornered group, possibly a di- or tri-cornered group. We argue that removing one or more such groups yields simpler structures without a significant loss of information.
Sometimes even 3 simple words can make a huge difference for reader comprehension.
Here are some other statements without labels. Can you tell what each one is: assumption or finding? conventional wisdom or new idea? minor detail or key point? argument or accepted fact?
Essentially, polipoliphos are defined as the intermediate class between topolits and pholios.
There is a negative relationship between A and B except under two circumstances.
X does not require Y.
A large fraction of bridges overestimate the shallowness of peat beds.
A 3-period model is needed to study this.
X is a key driver of this relationship.