Example collocations logo

Argument in sentence

1858 examples of Argument in a sentence

An additional argument, always resonant in this tradition, but particularly so today in poor countries, is UBI’s emancipatory potential for women.
Second, if it’s difficult to forge consensus within one country on how best to promote growth, imagine the same argument on a global scale.
One argument is that redundancy looks like waste in normal times, with cost-benefit calculations ruling out higher investment.
But this argument is flawed because of two distinct facts.
Mainstream leaders, to some degree, set the stage for the populist demagogues who are now trumping reasoned argument with angry, nativist appeals.
While this argument suggests that the global trading system must make more room for a rising China (and India), it overlooks the need to address the enormous structural problems in China’s domestic sectors if export-led growth is to become sustainable.
But, given that no other EU country has seriously considered excluding NATO, this argument seems to be little more than an excuse.
But that is no argument for failing to try again – especially in view of the mounting evidence that liquidity crunches can easily morph into solvency problems that quickly spill over national and regional boundaries.
The fate of those who began working at a very early age, or of women who interrupted work to raise their children, is used as an argument against reform.
For example, the argument in Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s book Why Nations Fail is essentially that technology does not diffuse because the ruling elite does not want it to.
The Financial Times’ Alphaville column recently dismissed the case for transferring a block of shares from Big Tech corporations, like Google, to a public trust fund by misrepresenting the underlying argument as a failure to appreciate what Google has done for us.
This is a little like justifying the confiscation of your shares in a company with the argument that the company is providing valuable services to you and others.
But addressing such shortcomings by ostracizing legitimate religious-political options merely reinforces jihadist recruiters’ argument that violence is the only way to secure reform.
But leave aside any moral argument and just think of the world’s interests for a moment.
In his address on the topic, Trump reiterated this argument.
And examining that connection provides a good opportunity to assess the weaknesses and ambiguities of the longstanding argument that furiously high-volume stock-market trading shortens corporate time horizons.
The argument in favor is that failure to do so would raise fears about how increased public debt would ever be repaid, or about how the ECB would “exit” from a swollen balance sheet, in turn undermining the stimulative impact of fiscal and monetary coordination.
The argument against is moral hazard: If we admit that modest ECB-financed deficits are possible and appropriate now, what will prevent politicians and electorates from demanding large and inflationary ECB-financed deficits on other occasions?
It is probably on the basis of this historical-political argument that Hollande will be able to bring about a German shift.
The fact is that there remains a vast lacuna between the intellectual argument for more integration and its practical appeal to ordinary people in Cork or Thessaloniki, who find it difficult to trust the EU and its leaders.
The implicit argument is that this move from price to quantity adjustments is the functional equivalent of additional monetary-policy easing.
The facile argument that Greece has little to export is irrelevant here.
Prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum, I borrowed this line from the Eagles’ 1976 hit “Hotel California” as an argument against Britain exiting the European Union.
Then there is the usual North/South argument, with "human rights" cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world.
This is not an argument for drift.
Yet, time and again, the president (or candidate), his vice president (or running mate), and his political aides eventually rely on Laffer’s flawed argument.
As the French, instinctively sympathetic to the anti-austerity argument and conscious of their increasingly junior role in the Franco-German partnership, were quick to notice, the German stance also signaled a potential shift from a “European Germany” to a “German Europe.”
All of this highlights the fundamental flaw in the argument that large-scale deregulation, such as that advocated by US President Donald Trump, benefits societies.
But, when firms’ efforts to create shareholder value lead to such far-reaching consequences – or “externalities,” in economists’ parlance – for the rest of society, the argument that self-interest advances social welfare falls apart.
For starters, the argument that the UK could negotiate favorable terms for selling its goods in the EU makes little sense, as Europe’s single market matters far more to British exporters than the UK market matters to European businesses.
BackNext