"corresponding claim" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It is usually used in a legal or formal context to refer to a statement or assertion that corresponds to a previous statement or situation. Example: In response to the defendant's argument, the plaintiff's lawyer presented the corresponding claim that their client had suffered financial loss due to the defendant's actions.
As regards the corresponding claim about metaphysics, it has at one time or another been widely believed (1) that it is the business of metaphysics to justify the ultimate assumptions of the sciences, and (2) that in metaphysics alone there are no unjustified assumptions.
Some moral obligations are "relational," "directional," or "bipolar" in structure: in promising you to act in a certain way, for example, I incur an obligation to you to so act and you acquire a corresponding claim or right against me that I so act.
The claim then immediately follows from the corresponding claim in the proof of Proposition 3.8.
From estimates (4.24 - 4.25) we conclude the corresponding claim for problem (4.21).
When the property is genuinely response-dependent, such as being disgusting, a corresponding claim is a priori or necessarily true without a whatever-it-takes specification.
Each of the claims of the next proposition is meant to be compared with the corresponding claim of Proposition A.2.
The answer to these questions may shed light on the extent to which new TLDs like.BIZ (1) provide "new" territory for those now unable to find a short, mnemonic name in the crowded.COM space, or (2) whether they instead are largely places for the existing.COM registrants to stake corresponding claims.
Some antirealists contend that claims involving unobservables should not be interpreted literally, but as elliptical for corresponding claims about observables.
The proof of claims (2) and (3) is similar to that of the corresponding claims of Theorem 6 thanks to Theorem 34.
(One further peculiar, much debated claim in Etchemendy 1990 is that true claims of the form "$F$ is logically true" or "$F$ is not logically true" should themselves be logical truths (while the corresponding claims "MTValid$F $$" and "Not MTValid$F $$" are not logical truths).
Second, not all diagnoses of metastatic bone disease result in corresponding claims codes.
