The phrase "argue that the procedure" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a specific procedure in a debate or analysis, particularly when presenting a viewpoint or claim about that procedure.
Example: "In their research, the authors argue that the procedure for data collection is flawed and needs revision."
Alternatives: "contend that the procedure" or "assert that the procedure".
They may even argue that the procedure poses a risk of bowel perforation.
They argue that the procedure is growing in popularity and hope to stage more parties around the country.
They argue that the procedure is "painful, inhumane, degrading, and a violation of medical ethics" for the prisoners and that "night-time only force-feeding seems problematic at best and possibly even dangerous to the detainees health".
While some bemoan the high cost of IVF in the United States and praise other countries for keeping the cost there down, others argue that the procedure's high cost in the U.S. serves an important purpose.
In particular, we argue that the procedures that will be required in these cases ought to be linguistic, and that the simple-minded importation of techniques, and that the simple-minded importation of techniques from logic may create a linguistics in which there cannot be procedures of the required sort.
Mr. Johanns argued that the procedure was meant to approve deficit-cutting provisions, but "was never really designed to pass complex legislation like climate change".
Petitioner next argues that the procedure Florida is now employing to appoint its electors "contraven[es]" Article II of the Constitution because of the role played in that procedure by the Florida Supreme Court.
And that's why the government will subpoena the records of any doctor who, having been charged with performing a partial-birth abortion, argues that the procedure was medically necessary.
Though fingerprinting is already the law in New York City and Houston, the companies drew a line in the Austin sand, arguing that the procedure is flawed, expensive, and would discourage potential drivers from signing up.
William G. Fitzhugh, a Richmond doctor who challenged the law, argued that the procedure can be necessary to protect the life of a patient and that banning it could prevent doctors from performing legal procedures out of a fear of prosecution.
Although the problem is dealt as a single input system, it is argued that the procedure can be extended to a multitherapy design or to any available control law.
