Example collocations logo

Argue in sentence

2151 examples of Argue in a sentence

Opponents, including the US, argue that India’s food-security program is distorting world prices and harming poor farmers in Africa.
For some time after 2005, it was possible to argue that all of this was hot air, and that fast, decisive action to respond to genocidal atrocities would remain as unlikely as ever.
With some 30 million Kurds divided among four states (Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran), nationalists argue that they deserve the world’s recognition.
Politicians who seek scapegoats might argue that they mean no harm to their targets, and that they are helping their societies to avoid worse possibilities.
Allow employers to fire workers more easily, they argue, and employers will hire them more readily.
Many argue that subsidies of any kind should never be countenanced, in part because they are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to abolish, even if they are no longer needed.
Nor can one argue that Brazil’s government under President Lula has not been characterized by moderation, following a more orthodox economic policy even than that of its predecessor, one based on fiscal discipline, budget surpluses, and an anti-inflationary monetary policy.
Conservative voices argue just the opposite – that abolishing Article 9 is important for exactly such reasons.
India, the government’s critics argue, has taken upon itself the enormous burden of talking peace with a government that, when it comes to addressing the real threats emanating from its territory and institutions, has proved to be ineffective at best and duplicitous at worst.
Some at the Fed – Chairman Ben Bernanke and Vice Chair Janet Yellen – argue that policymakers can pursue both goals: the Fed will raise interest rates slowly to provide economic stability (strong income and employment growth and low inflation) while preventing financial instability (credit and asset bubbles stemming from high liquidity and low interest rates) by using macro-prudential supervision and regulation of the financial system.
As a result, only the Fed’s interest-rate instrument, Stein and Tarullo argue, can get into all of the financial system’s cracks.
Supporters of screening argue that it helps to detect and treat cancer earlier, when the chances of curing it are highest.
The pharmaceutical industry will no doubt argue that government engagement stifles innovation.
However, it would be a stretch to argue that he is the best candidate for the IMF position.
Some argue that SWFs’ home governments and host countries have too many mutual interests – including the stability of the financial system and maintaining the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency – to threaten global markets.
By contrast, inflation “hawks” argue that inflation must be attacked preemptively.
More perniciously, many supporters of this view, when confronted with the reality of unemployment, argue that it arises only because of government-imposed rigidities and trade unions.
As I argue in my book The Future of Power, global interdependence involves both sensitivity and vulnerability.
Coen went on to argue that, “the likelihood of a future financial crisis occurring only increases with time.”
On the other hand, economists such as Boston University’s James Bessen argue that automation often goes hand in hand with the creation of new jobs.
Opposition politicians also argue that a suspension of EU funding would harm ordinary Hungarians and Poles, who should not be punished for the actions of their governments.
But the companies argue that there is absolutely no other way to compete – they must either comply with censorship or discontinue business.
But proponents of phasing out access to incandescent bulbs argue that they know better.
Those who argue for de-emphasizing income inequality maintain that public policy should seek to ensure that all citizens enjoy basic living standards – nutritious food, adequate shelter, quality health care, and modern infrastructure – rather than aiming to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
But to argue that an income independent of the job market is bound to be demoralizing is as morally obtuse as it is historically inaccurate.
Skeptics might argue that singling out capable partners for new forms of cooperation would risk making NATO members’ security dependent on non-members, or that it could alienate less capable partners, or give current NATO members a free ride.
Skeptics can plausibly argue that the presumed aggressor never planned to attack, or canceled an assault for other reasons.
Supporters of the US administration might fairly argue that it is undertaking long-deferred maintenance on issues such as income inequality.
Some argue that these countries are inherently unstable.
Had Gilani remained in office, he would have provided more ammunition to his opponents, who argue that the Zardari-led government has been leading Pakistan in the opposite direction.
BackNext