The phrase "argument incapable" is not standard in written English and may cause confusion.
It could be used in contexts discussing the limitations of an argument or reasoning, but it would need clarification or rephrasing for better understanding.
Example: "The theory presented was argument incapable, failing to address key counterpoints."
Alternatives: "unable to argue" or "lacking argumentative strength".
These cases concern arguments non-transmissive of justification depending on a given evidence, i.e., arguments incapable of transmitting justification depending on that evidence under any epistemic circumstance.
A number of philosophers, including Bernard Williams (1973), have dismissed the argument as incapable of achieving its stated goal on the grounds that it fails to distinguish between conceiving of something and visually imagining it.
Since it relies upon (1) and (2), and (1) and (2) are just equivalent to (Necessitation-T), it follows that Armstrong's argument is incapable of providing independent support for the conception he favours of what it is to be a truth-maker.
Not only do the arguments appear incapable of compromise at any step along the way, I also don't recall another time that the arguments were as loud and continuous as they are right now.
Second, the suggestion that hard-luck African children will necessarily prefer a "better" life in Europe teeters on the edge of an argument that Africans are incapable of judging their own best interest.
Compulsory school attendance is usually justified by reference to the argument that minors are incapable of making sufficiently reasoned choices.
"Even if only one woman were to pass, it would negate all those arguments that they're incapable of keeping up," Katherine Kidder, Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told VICE News.
It is an argument that Hague is constitutionally incapable of enunciating; the blood in his veins runs so Tory blue that he would rather the sixth-formers of Currie High School stayed at home on polling day than vote Labour.
And they advance the insulting argument that the electorate is incapable of assessing two competing policies on negative gearing at the same time, so the Coalition should abandon any ideas of restricting access to "excessive" negative gearing deductions in the interests of "not confusing the message" (translation: not confusing the dumb voters).
It is not that people are incapable of generating arguments that are counter to their beliefs but, rather, people are not motivated to do so.
