The phrase "argument should be noted" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when emphasizing the importance of a particular argument or point in a discussion or analysis.
Example: "In the context of this debate, the argument should be noted that economic factors play a significant role in social issues."
Alternatives: "it is important to acknowledge" or "one should consider".
Just as was the case with the Ryan Coogler flick, the "But... but... inflation!" argument should be noted since it's factually accurate.
For additional critical discussion of this, see Conway (1988), p. 35, and Robert Adams (1985), pp. 225 and 240. 2. One feature of the above formulation of the argument should be noted, namely, that the predicate '\(x\) prevents the existence of \ y\)' introduces an intensional context; the fact that \(x\) prevents the existence of \ y\) entails the non-existence of \ y\).
On this argument it should be noted that the lower predictive validity occurs across diets, rather than within them, and that there will be no expected change in reliability within diets as all candidates, passing and failing, contribute to the estimate of reliability.
Although protecting volcanologists against legal issues related to their conduct during a crisis is not among the arguments in this paper, it should be noted that as a consequence of rational volcanic hazard forecasts, volcanologists are released from the inappropriate duty of making decisions impacting society.
For now, it should be noted that the argument stated in the previous two paragraphs is not supposed to be an argument for dualism, but only for adopting epiphenomenalism, once dualism is accepted.
It should be noted that "arguments against returning fault to divorce include the following: First, returning fault to divorce would cause people to incur far greater legal fees than they already do.
It should be noted that Leibniz's argument bears a certain affinity with the ontological argument that Gödel gives, insofar as it also seeks to demonstrate the possibility of a being having all simple, positive properties.
Another objection to fictionalism is put forward by Burgess (2004)—and it should be noted that the argument here has roots in Burgess (1983) and Burgess and Rosen (1997).
( It should be noted that this argument is a straw man fallacy unless the vegetarian in question is a utilitarian.
It should be noted, however, that this argument is explicitly rejected by at least two of the defenders of fictionalism discussed above.
The diversity of arguments and positions on this broad particularist theme should be noted.
