The phrase "argued pages" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to refer to pages that have been debated or discussed, but the phrasing is awkward and unclear.
Example: "The argued pages of the report left many questions unanswered."
Alternatives: "disputed pages" or "debated sections".
"Mind and Cosmos," weighing in at 128 closely argued pages, is hardly a barn-burning polemic.
Anyone who thinks that Americans could do without the federal government, or should be happy with the way it is run, should be forced to read the 50-odd subtly argued pages about American railroads and forests.
In the course of two hundred fluently argued pages, he reviews postwar history and shows how the Democrats gained (with Truman and Kennedy), and then lost (after Vietnam), and then began to recover (with Clinton), and then lost again (after September 11th) the ability to offer the public "their own narrative of American greatness".
In a methodically argued 48-page ruling, Garcia said that the Texas ban "conflicts with the United States constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process".
In a carefully argued, 33-page memorandum, he concluded that children given antidepressants were almost twice as likely as those given placebos to become suicidal.
Appearing at the Leveson Inquiry this week, for the second time, Dominic Mohan, the editor of The Sun, argued that Page 3 "promotes natural beauty" and is beneficial because the women are "good role models" because they're "healthy".
It's a densely argued four-page piece, which concludes "the media are probably the most powerful of all our institutions today; and they are squandering their power and ignoring their obligation".
Next to the suicide bombings, the air strikes, and the beheadings, a closely argued 300-page monograph devoted to a radical post-colonial thesis might seem to suggest a modest literary intervention.
He bristled (bristling easily) when others described the Javan warties as skittish, inbred and not worth so much attention; every species, he would argue over pages of e-mails, needed both advocates, like him, and all possible attention.
For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts' application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what "the Government" argues (see pages 26-28).
Mr. Stewart, at times reading from the same pages, argued otherwise.
