Paper title: reply to reviewers

Paper authors

General reply to everyone, thanks, general points followed in the reply, and the like.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments ...
We believe we have addressed all the issues raised in the following rebuttal. For
each comment, we have first highlighted the issue, then we provided an answer, and
finally we described how the manuscript was adjusted.

1/3
R EVIEWER # 1

C OMMENT # 1.1

The snarky but useless comment

Reply:
Your perfect reply here you detail all the nice things you want the referee to know
and you withhold all the nasty things you really think

Changes:
Changes made in the manuscript. Overkill if you also add track changes. To add a
track-changes version of the two manuscripts, run latexdiff on the original + revised
paper. Goolge latexdiff tutorial to see how that works. Once you do that, you can
copy-paste code from the file highlighting difference directly in here. For instance:

We hypothesized that culinary experience would correlate with perfor-

mance in cooking frogs This is indeed ::::::::
Indeed,:::::
this:::
is one of the reasons
put forth by proposersof French cuisine :::::
why::::::::::::
advocates :::
of ::::::::
boiling::::::
frogs
support French cuisine.

R EVIEWER # 2

C OMMENT # 2.1

Each section command is a new reviewer. Then you have comment, reply, and changes com-
mands. You can change their appearance in the preamble.
Reply:
reply to first comment of ref 2

Changes:
lots of very important changes

C OMMENT # 2.2

A second comment from referee 2

Reply:
We do not like referee 2

Changes:

2/3
So we did not change absolutely anything on this point.

3/3