The phrase "asserted only if" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in logical or conditional statements to indicate that something is true or valid under specific circumstances.
Example: "The hypothesis is asserted only if the data supports the conclusion drawn from the experiment."
Alternatives: "claimed only if" or "stated only if".
This doctrine is important because a bankruptcy trustee can assert only those claims that the bankrupt company could, and if there would be a valid in pari delicto claim against the company, then it can be asserted against the trustee.
Even his colour asserts only itself.
He had asserted that only if she resigned this summer, before the November elections, could she ensure that Obama would be able to choose a successor who shares her views.
Thus, Timothy Williamson (2000, Chapter 11) defends at length what is come to be known as 'the knowledge account of assertion,' whereby our linguistic practices are governed by the rule: "One must: assert p only if one knows p" (2000, 243) Several objections to this argument have been made.
Some sort of proportionality test seems likely, whereby English courts can assert jurisdiction only if a significant share of sales (10% is one figure being bandied about) are in England.
The same is true for philosophers of language when they say that a normal speaker, on reflection, sincerely asserts 'A' only if she believes that A (Kripke 1979).
For instance, it has been proposed that there is a 'knowledge rule': "One must: assert p only if one knows p" (Williamson 2000: 2000.
This was particularly objectionable to mathematicians of a "constructive" bent such as the so-called French Empiricists Baire, Borel and Lebesgue, for whom a mathematical object could be asserted to exist only if it can be defined in such a way as to characterize it uniquely.
What Rose has done is to highlight three specific traits that characterise the "engineering mindset": first, it asks "why argue when there is one best solution?"; second, it asserts "if only people were rational, remedies would be simple"; and third, it appeals to those with an underlying craving for a lost order, which lies at the heart of both salafi and jihadi ideology.
Also, Ishani Maitra and Brian Weatherson (2010: 112) propose what they call The Evidence Responsiveness Rule, that one assert that p only if one's attitude towards $p$ is properly responsive to the evidence (they also propose to complement it with an action rule, that it is proper to assert that $p$ only if acting as if $p$ is "the thing for you to do").
