The phrase "arguments for including" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing reasons or justifications for including something in a particular context, such as a proposal, essay, or discussion.
Example: "There are several arguments for including renewable energy sources in our national policy framework."
Alternatives: "reasons for incorporating" or "justifications for adding".
Another is the policy of putting disruptive or handicapped children in regular classrooms.This is supposedly for reasons of "inclusion"—and there are indeed strong arguments for including children with physical disabilities in mainstream education wherever possible.
Table 1 lists all potential indicators, summarizes the theoretical arguments for including them in a RoRo connectivity indicator and presents the extent to which they are publicly available.
Although the 2 measures were strongly correlated (see results below), there are practical arguments for including both measurements of reproductive rate.
There are also arguments for including more than symptomatic criteria to define remission (33).
Whilst off-the-shelf programmes are inevitably influential, there are strong arguments for including local elements in programme design and content and for ensuring that those who will be both delivering and receiving the intervention contribute to its development.
In contrast, the argument for including Medicare and Medicaid in a framework for long-run deficit containment is compelling.
There is another possible argument for including the rich in these tax cuts, one based on "fairness".
But the original argument for including it in the EU's list of renewable-energy supplies was respectable.
There was a technical argument for including gender — to construct sentences like "She shared a photo with you" — but it also exposed women to online harassment.
This does not only happen in the Old South, but racist manipulation of the voting process in other parts of the country is an argument for including more jurisdictions rather than tossing out pre-clearance.
But this Supreme Court ruling, Hemel said, could give some people a new argument for including religious institutions in subsidy programs and invalidate subsidy programs that were written before this case.
