The phrase "argued to apply" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where someone is asserting that a particular principle, rule, or concept is relevant or applicable to a specific situation.
Example: "The theory was argued to apply in cases where traditional methods failed to yield results."
Alternatives: "claimed to be applicable" or "asserted to be relevant".
While two of their three attempted causes of action were dismissed, they were granted the appeal on the basis that an obscure 1897 tort could be argued to apply in this case.
To here, the models have been argued to apply to local populations (patches), such as would operate between colonies, each with a pair of bacterial strains growing in isolation of other colonies.
A third area of further research could be, as argued above, to apply the results of the current scenarios to study the implications and build related specific scenarios focusing on concrete topics.
Similarly, it is argued, to say that applying 'green' to a green object is correct, is to say that the application has a certain non-normative property (the expression applies truly) but it is also to make the higher-order statement that the application possesses the feature that makes it correct in a normative sense.
Although Justice Sotomayor joined his dissent as to the meaning of the statute, she did not join the portion of his opinion arguing that to apply the statute more broadly would offend the Second Amendment.
She has long argued for countries to apply pressure by forbidding companies to trade with Myanmar or invest in it.
But what has not been known is that while the administration has stuck to that broad principle, it has been arguing over how to apply the body of law, which was developed for conventional armies, to a war against a terrorist organization.
Summers argues for governments to apply strong fiscal stimulus through infrastructure spending.
A memo from the Department of Justice to the White House counsel dated Aug. 1, 2002, argued that any attempt to apply Congress's anti-torture law "in a manner that interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional".
If a law banning forced marriages were passed, he argues, it would have to "apply equally to their rulings as well".
But he rests his case both on the Bible and, more originally, on the Declaration of Independence, arguing that you need to apply the declaration to unborn children in exactly the same way as Lincoln applied it to slaves.
