Example collocations logo

Argument in sentence

1858 examples of Argument in a sentence

Beyond the moral imperative, there is a strong financial argument in favor of the transition to a circular economy – namely, the promise of over $1 trillion in business opportunities.
A few decades before Luther developed his argument, a German blacksmith named Johannes Gutenberg had invented a new system of movable-type printing, allowing the reproduction of the written word at greater speeds and lower costs than the laborious and less-durable woodblock approach.
Indeed, this amounts to one more argument for Germany to use its fiscal space to increase investment and implement growth-enhancing policies.
That is the argument behind the world’s largest biometrics project, a multimodal solution (iris, fingerprints, and face) affecting more than one billion Indians.
The real argument now taking place between Europe’s national governments is about the authority that the EU’s president should have.
In the interest of financial stability, there is a compelling argument for much speedier normalization – completing the task in as little as half the time the Fed is currently suggesting.
That argument was accepted, and the SGP was supposedly rendered more “intelligent” by, for example, permitting budget deficits to be adjusted for the economic cycle, adding medium-term objectives for expenditure, and introducing escape clauses.
The Japanese do have one argument that is not so easily dismissed.
The best response to this argument is that the wrongness of causing needless suffering to sentient beings is not culturally specific.
The populist response relies on the bizarre but evidently resonant argument that Europe – or, more specifically, Germany – is encouraging the refugee inflows.
It is as much an economic as an ethical argument.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, according to this argument, the bi-polar balance of power vanished and America became the world's only superpower, engendering resentment and envy - and hence a difficult time for US-European relations.
That is a stunning argument, especially coming from a conservative/libertarian.
This reasoning leads to three lines of argument that preclude basic strategic analysis.
Indeed, the final argument – in a sense underpinning the others – is that the Fed became less worried about the potential for collateral economic damage from prolonged reliance on unconventional monetary policy.
And if the Fed feels that the costs and risks of hyper-activism have indeed diminished (the fifth argument), it becomes more comfortable maintaining intense policy experimentation.
But empirical research reveals a fundamental problem with this argument: China’s TFP has grown at an average annual rate of nearly 4% since Deng’s reforms began.
But this argument ignores the fact that China has been experiencing double-digit annual GDP growth, owing largely to capital expansion, while America’s annual GDP growth has averaged only 2-3%.
The Taliban's argument was simple: if your bird starts singing while you are praying, you will be distracted and your prayer will be nullified.
The first argument is that the International Monetary Fund can deal with instances of currency manipulation.
The second argument made by the US Treasury and the Trade Representative is that no sufficiently precise currency rules can be negotiated.
The third argument against putting anti-manipulation provisions in the TPP is that they would imperil America’s ability to implement monetary stimulus.
The fourth argument is that no major country is currently manipulating its exchange rate (the renminbi has appreciated since the mid-2000s), so there is nothing to worry about.
But this argument does not hold up when the participating countries are examined one by one.
Read an extended version of this argument in Jeffrey Frankel’s blog post, “Frack to the Future.”
For the inflation-targeting purists, the argument seems impeccable.
Humala’s main campaign argument was that he would not risk the “success” of Peru’s economy, but would, on the contrary, strengthen it.
In mid-1960’s Great Britain, Nicholas Kaldor, the world-class Cambridge economist and an influential adviser to the Labour Party, raised an alarm over “deindustrialization.”His argument was that an ongoing shift of value added from manufacturing to services was harmful, because manufactures were technologically progressive, whereas services were not.
Kaldor’s argument was based on the erroneous premise that services were technologically stagnant.
In fact, the dubious notion that we should select economic activities based on their presumed technical innovativeness has been carried even further, in support of the argument that we should favor semiconductor chips over potato chips.
BackNext