Example collocations logo

Argue in sentence

2151 examples of Argue in a sentence

Guided mainly by a cash-flow analysis, European authorities argue that low interest rates and long maturities have made the nation’s debt sustainable.
Yet everyone knew that once the Bundestag voted for the latest Greek rescue and enough time passed to acknowledge reality gracefully, Merkel would reverse course and argue that the eurozone needed a bigger firewall after all.
As abhorrent as these methods may be, they seldom lack defenders, who argue that they are needed to obtain information that can save lives.
Extreme stress, they argue, causes the subjects to reveal what they know.
By contrast, Google cannot credibly argue that the capital generating its profit stream was produced entirely privately.
Critics who argue that these parties were merely maneuvering tactically are not entirely wrong.
One might argue that the international community’s refusal to recognize Hamas’s victory when it came to power in an election in 2006 stymied the movement’s potential for moderation.
Supporters of such legislation – including advocates in the United States of a recently proposed Arizona law that would have permitted business owners to refuse service to gays on religious grounds – argue that it reflects an organic popular backlash against a threat to “traditional” values.
Germans have a point when they argue that complaints about “austerity” ought to be directed at Greece’s previous governments.
Of course, few would argue that education is not important.
Experts argue that the probability of a terrorist attack because of the Dubai takeover is small.
Critics of Vladimir Putin’s regime argue that Russia’s political system is too centralized and risks collapse in today’s economic storm.
While one can argue that one-off devaluation was risky – as it could have triggered a panic – gradual depreciation should have started earlier than it did.
Some people may argue that investment growth without consumption growth will result in overcapacity and eventually lead to recession.
They argue that ECB quantitative easing alone, with no fiscal relaxation, would be ineffective.
Of course, one might argue that the emerging European consensus is quite ambiguous.
As for industrial policy, the economist Stephen S. Cohen and I argue in our 2016 book, Concrete Economics, that officials should recognize and capitalize on America’s interlinked communities of producers and their deep institutional knowledge of engineering practices.
While the government tells the troika that privatization of ports and municipal airports will continue, many cabinet members argue against it.
Indeed, in the context of his age, Friedman was a true intellectual revolutionary, combining rigorous academic research and gracefully written popular books and journalism to argue for free-market policies – and to affirm the link, defended by writers from Adam Smith to Friedrich von Hayek, between economic freedom and political liberty.
They argue that they have reined in their fishing fleet to avoid incidents with the Vietnamese, only to see Vietnamese fishermen aggressively claim the relinquished waters.
Central bankers might argue that we have entered a state of permanent market crisis analogous to the never-ending “war on terror.”
The so-called C-6 might argue that, given their price-stability mandate, only central banks of countries whose economic fate might destabilize domestic prices should receive privileged access to domestic currency.
Some argue that it would have been simpler to merge the two, and the unwieldiness of the new means of articulating policy suggests that this might indeed have been a good idea.
This is not desirable for its own sake, as conservatives might argue, but rather for the additional scope that it creates for monetary policy.
The move was met with howls of protest from those who argue that the entry of large hypermarket chains like Carrefour and Walmart will devastate the small shops that currently dominate India’s retail sector.
Those who support the decision argue that India’s supply chains are simply too wasteful, and that only the finance and knowhow of big, international retail chains can upgrade them.
Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many.
In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can be acceptable only if they are founded on the transcendent values of faith and are thus sanctioned by God.
You cannot follow the model of a "modern" nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, and then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state's human-rights conduct.
Worse yet, failure would strengthen those on both sides of the dispute who argue that diplomacy is a waste of time.
BackNext