The phrase "arguments stated" is correct and usable in written English
It can be used when referring to points or claims that have been expressed or presented in a discussion or text.
Example: "In the debate, the arguments stated by both sides were compelling and well-articulated."
Alternatives: "points made" or "claims presented"
Furthermore, presumably, in scientific contexts the comparative plausibility values for hypotheses should depend on explicit plausibility arguments (stated within b), not on privately held opinions.
Among those not convinced by Hume's arguments stated in section 2.1 above are D.C. Williams, supported and corrected by D.C. Stove, and David Armstrong.
The arguments stated above contribute to our opinion that LAVH nowadays knows fewer indications compared to the era of its introduction.
Case (ii): The proof follows by taking S(X 2)=−1, and repeating the line of arguments stated above for Case (i).
the U.S. Prosecutor, during subsequent oral arguments, stated: "we can't prove who shot those agents".
This proceeding allows one to get an impression of the degree to which real data of finite sample size may approach the distribution predicted by the NBL while adopting one of Newcomb's arguments stated in the second paragraph of his two-pages 1881 note [1]: "As natural numbers occur in nature, they are to be considered as the ratios of quantities.
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) denied many of Free Press' arguments, stating that "[TV Everywhere] is an effort to ensure more content than ever is distributed over the Internet at no extra charge to consumers".
Hence, the arguments stating that enabling alternate providers in abortion care would jeopardize women's lives, currently voiced by many of those opposing the amendments, are based on unsubstantiated grounds.
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.
That document, filed October 3, 1977 (nine days before oral argument), stated that the government supported programs tailored to make up for past discrimination, but opposed rigid set-asides.
An astute observer, Jonathan Carver, called out the flaw in this argument, stating "it's not about training wheels.
