Sentences with phrase «basic arguments were made»

Sadly the same basic arguments were made in an article written in Waste Age in 1993 promoting the use of paper - pellets as a substitute for coal.

Not exact matches

The key to making this argument isn't any kind of investigation into the Trump Foundation, it's the basics of Trump's business ownership.

You'd probably have to come up with a statistical model that estimates what the fluctuations should be given some basic assumptions on how people will buy to make a conclusive argument that there is something fishy here.

If you accept that as your basic premise, then arguments for God's existence will obviously make sense to you because they just confirm what you al; ready believe to be true.

It seems that maybe what John, Peter, James, and Jude did was go to a professionally trained letter writer and provided them with the basic ideas, arguments, and points they wanted to make in their letter, and then let the professional letter writer compose the letter according to the letter writing standards of that day.

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

Although I agree with the basic premise of this argument, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the inroads science has made into those realms previously occupied by religion is far greater than just storm prediction.

The notion that «breast is best» simply because it's natural sounds ringingly similar to the arguments made by pro-lifers and even contraception opponents, all of which begin with the same basic premise: women should be shackled to their corporeal destinies.

Note that it is difficult to make a coherent argument from a libertarian position that this was «just bad apples», because if the «bad bankers» of Iceland be merely «random» bad apples, they caused Iceland to have to reject basic principles of free market economics like «there should be no capital controls».

«Anyone who suggests otherwise is making petty political arguments which don't stand up to basic scrutiny.»

Here, in one eloquently worded, organized and argued paper was the same basic argument that Dr. Lee, Dr. Zava and myself made our 2002 book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Breast Cancer about why progesterone is protective against breast cancer and progestins cause it.

The basic argument for interim assessments is actually quite compelling: let's fix our students» learning problems during the year, rather than waiting for high - stakes state tests to make summative judgments on us all at the end of the year, because interim assessments can be aggregated and have external referents (projection to standards, norms, scales).

There's nothing wrong with the basics of this argument, and that's the reason I spent extra months and invested a few hundred dollars more to make my book available on Lightning Source.

Alexandra, And a review of the posts of Victoria Strauss ALSO shows that the people who follow her around on the message boards are like mindless cult members, impervious to reason and lacking both judgment and basic logic skills, and often try to make completely illogical claims and arguments in a hopeless attempt to redeem their leader.

The basic assumption with all things Amazon is that we have no choice but to shop or publish with Amazon, an argument that makes its proponents look a little on the ridiculous side.

Sure, one could make the argument that the game is as wide as the ocean but as shallow as a puddle since individually all the mechanics are simple, basic affairs, and yet that would be missing the point; if they were deeper then I don't think the game would be as relaxing and peaceful as it is.

I've never liked the fact that Microsoft makes their customers pay for something as basic and fundamental as simple online play, but I can kinda see where people come from when they make the argument that they're «paying for the stability.»

How I reason is, «if even I can think of basic information that casts doubt on the idea of man - made climate change, then either the data for the idea is not very strong, or the scientists reporting it are not making a very articulate argument.

Isn't this reflective of the same basic argument that M&M [the Climateaudit people] have been making for several years?

But it still makes the basic «argument from ignorance» that most of the past warming can be attributed to anthropogenic factors, i.e. by human CO2, in supporting itsmodel - based 2xCO2 climate sensitivity estimate.

Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it's clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?

That message makes sense, intuitively: Since pretty much all arguments against the basics of climate science are silly, it stands to reason that those who peddle them are silly, too.

Lawyers who make basic usage and grammar mistakes produce readers who are less receptive to their arguments.

As noted above, the European Commission's brief makes two basic arguments, the first substantive and the second procedural: (1) that the jurisdictional limits of the ATS should be defined by reference to international law, in particular that the US should allow universal civil jurisdiction only in cases where universal criminal jurisdiction would normally apply; and (2) that the US's exercise of universal civil jurisdiction must be constrained by the procedural limits imposed by international law, in particular by an exhaustion requirement.

In the same book, Farrow makes a number of arguments against what he refers to as the privatization of civil justice, such as the impoverishment of common law when cases are removed from the public system (this dovetails with Simpson's work), the use of a private (thus, confidential) system to circumvent public policies, public accountability, and basic notions of procedural fairness, and the shielding from the public of transactions that would not withstand public scrutiny.

The SRL usually is not versed in legalese and when they tell the facts or make argument using everyday language that says the exact same thing the legalese says the judges pretend not to understand (in some cases they actually may not understand, I find them often very unaware of basic legal principles) so they take the easy and safest way out by saying the one word that works for them - dismissed.

This article is also interesting in that it makes the case that Bitcoins may be a commodity, which is the opposite argument made on the Libertarian Board a few days ago that argued that Bitcoins were not money because regression couldn't take Bitcoins back to a basic commodity gold and silver specifically.

In my opinion, if the Competition Bureau of Canada can snub basic «common sense» along the way towards making reference and arguments relating to specific sections of the Competition Act, then the integrity of the Act is washed in the same tub, and there's a strong risk of: «throwing out the baby with the bath water»!