The phrase "argued to understand" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to express a discussion or debate aimed at achieving understanding, but the construction is awkward and unclear.
Example: "The researchers argued to understand the complexities of human behavior, but their points were often lost in translation."
Alternatives: "debated to comprehend" or "discussed to grasp".
Authors have an obligation to "write true things", he argues, to "understand that truth is not in what happens but what it tells us about who we are".
Moreover, Whiting (1986) argues, to understand my concern for her for her sake in terms of my concern for things for my sake raises the question of how to understand this latter concern.
Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism.
He argues that to understand such strange behavior as stock market bubbles, it is necessary to have better models of how people make investment decisions.
In an epilogue called "The Return of Meaning," Gleick argues that to understand how information gives rise to belief and knowledge, we have to renounce Shannon's "ruthless sacrifice of meaning," which required jettisoning "the very quality that gives information its value".
Here we will argue that to understand the abilities of cells we need to understand their stochastic nature.
Marco Rubio, in contrast, Newsom argues, "claims" to understand systemic change, but doesn't really get it.
Learning by analogy argues that, to understand new concepts, we often need more knowledge than is stored in the category used for categorization (Gregan-Paxton and John 1997).
Moreover, she argues that to understand how prostitution evolved historically, we need to understand "its relationship to the sexual regulation of all women in archaic states and its relationship to the enslavement of females" (Lerner 1986, 124).
Arriaza [4] argues that to understand the social dynamic of artificial mummification among Chinchorro the practice should be analyzed from the trilogy of the grieving individuals, the dead and the conception of the spiritual world.
