Argument in sentence

1858 examples of Argument in a sentence

George Soros said I “distorted and obfuscated” his argument.

There is some substance in this argument: although not all economists, and certainly not all social scientists, advocate international integration, they are undoubtedly more inclined toward highlighting its benefits than the average citizen is.

Besides the moral argument for reducing inequality, there is also an economic argument.

One argument in favor of the separatist choice is that an independent Quebec will belong to the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA).

But, again, the argument is not convincing.

Dawkins’ argument is marred by three common fallacies.

Those of us who fear that the Fed’s approach has greatly deepened the US economy’s malaise and is turning America’s cyclical unemployment into permanent long-term structural non-employment have lost the domestic monetary-policy argument.

But there is another policy argument that needs to be joined.

One prominent argument lately has been that what is needed most is Keynesian economic stimulus – for example, deficit spending.

This argument, long discredited, resonates in the actions of the Iraqi insurgents and their fanatical allies.

There is merit in both positions – but much more in the Spanish and Italian argument.

Finally, the pro-farming argument assumes that commercial breeders will eventually supply horn at lower prices than poachers.

The argument for this option is that long-term secular factors are important drivers of capital inflows, as advanced-economy investors discover that they are underweight in emerging-market assets and reduce their portfolios’ “home bias.”

That, unfortunately, is often par for the course in India’s parliament, many of whose opposition members appear to believe that disrupting proceedings, rather than delivering a convincing argument, is the most effective way to make their points.

So there is no real moral argument for outsize wealth amid widespread poverty.

Given the Syrian opposition’s manifest ineffectiveness and disunity, so the argument goes, President Bashar al-Assad’s fall, when it finally comes, will incite civil war, massacres, and chaos, which is likely to spill over Syria’s borders, further destabilizing weak neighbors like Iraq and Lebanon, and leading, perhaps, to a regional crisis.

What is actually happening in Syria refutes this argument.

Fear of another Islamist takeover is a second main argument against toppling Assad, but the longer he stays in power, the greater the gains made by Islamists on the ground.

The occasional argument that it is a genuine Lebanese political movement, tied to Iran but ultimately Lebanese, is simply wrong.

In 1914, war really was thought to be inevitable, a fatalistic view reinforced by the Social Darwinist argument that war should be welcomed, because it would “clear the air” like a good summer storm.

This seems like a sound argument.

By contrast, suppressing the freedom of speech of Islam’s critics merely gives rise to the suspicion that evidence and sound argument cannot show their arguments to be mistaken.

The Democrats’ Line in the SandBERKELEY – Ever since the 1928 work of Frank Ramsey, economists have accepted the utilitarian argument that a good economy is one in which returns on investment are not too great a multiple – less than three – of the rate of per capita economic growth.

And they might reasonably conclude that his failure to channel some of his Fox News salary into a 401(k) account is a very powerful argument against the words coming out of his mouth.

But, given that the Bush doctrine has compounded the failed-state problem, this is a bogus argument.

My own affidavit agrees with Hedges’ argument that US reporters are already modifying their behavior in response to such laws – and to frightening recent examples that have been made of controversial publishers like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

I want to extend his argument.

There is some validity in the argument, because if our understanding is inherently imperfect, regulations are bound to be defective.

But the argument rings hollow, because it fails to explain why regulations were needed in the first place.

It sidesteps the issue by using a different argument: because regulations are faulty, unregulated markets are perfect.

Related words