The phrase "argument differs from" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when comparing or contrasting different arguments or viewpoints in a discussion or analysis.
Example: "In this debate, the argument differs from the previous one in its approach to the ethical implications of the issue."
Alternatives: "the argument contrasts with" or "the argument is distinct from".
But the peace argument differs from another stand with a long history in Christian tradition, recently articulated by Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders, that there are instances in which war may be justly waged.
It is worth noting an important respect in which Moore's argument differs from Kant's.
One difficulty with this interpretation is that even a highly probable argument differs from a demonstration in that the former is vulnerable to probabilistic counter-arguments.
This argument differs from the standard version of Evans's argument by not depending upon identity-involving properties (e.g. being such that it is indeterminate whether she is Omega) to establish distinctness, and this removes some sources of controversy.
Withagen, de Poel, Araújo, and Pepping (2012) also argue that affordances can invite behavior, but insist that their argument differs from phenomenology, since affordances do not generally invite behavior.
The logic underlying our argument differs from theirs because we posit two underlying socio-political factors, uncertainty and controversy, that shape how firms include implementation plans as part of deal evaluation.
In this respect his argument differs importantly from Pascal's "wager" arguments.
Kant's practical argument differs profoundly from the speculative arguments for God's existence popular in Kant's day i.e., ontological, cosmological, and physiotheological proofs.
However, these arguments differ from results shown in other studies like pill count, dosing frequency and adverse events as shown by Stone et al. [25] or resistance, regimen convenience and sleep disturbance shown by Beusterien et al. [26].
However, these arguments differ from the known aspects like pill count, dosing frequency and adverse events shown by Stone et al. [27] or resistance, regimen convenience and sleep disturbance shown by Beusterien et al. [28].
Furthermore, their reigning hypotheses, such as the noncontagion theory, and their motivations, such as proslavery or antislavery arguments, differed from those of medical and research establishments today.
