अतर्क-करना इसके अंग्रेजी अर्थ का उदाहरण

In the book Global Energy Transformation, author Mats Larsson refers to the work of Professor Ruttan and argues that large scale government programs for energy systems transformation will become necessary to drive the development of new energy technologies.

However, one survey found that about half of consumers believe it is insurer's responsibility, and consumers may come to this conclusion through the insurer's processes, which one legal scholar argues creates a "reasonable expectation" of coverage, which is a controversial insurance law doctrine adopted in certain states.

Using the metaphor of "a Piece of Clock-work", he argues that when a thing depends upon another thing as its cause, this implies that “the first thing exists that the second may exist”.

For it was then, Cheyne argued, that the blood and the juices of the most healthy and strong began to cool, to thicken and were becoming "vapid" and obstructed in the "Capillaries and Lymphatics".

Shu (2003) later argued that the vetulicolians were an early, specialized side-branch of deuterostomes.

Driscoll and proponents of the changes argued that the church had outgrown its original governing structure, while opponents contended that the changes consolidated power with Driscoll and his trusted lieutenants.

In March 2009, Driscoll was involved in an ABC Nightline debate entitled, "Does Satan Exist?" Driscoll and Annie Lobert, founder of the Hookers for Jesus Christian ministry, argued for the existence of the devil against the philosopher Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson, a former fundamentalist minister and author of The Gospel of Inclusion.

Driscoll argued that a belief in both Satan and God was an essential tenet of Christianity.

" Kraft further argued that this "established pattern of"nbsp;.

Dave came to the ring and argued with his brother.

Kalat argued that it had possessed a sovereign status rather than the status of an Indian state.

Pakistan argued that it was the heir to India’s agreements with Indian states, while Kalat argued that the treaty explicitly limited the party to the British Government.

Several hostages argued that they had long since become alienated from their old homeland in Europe and would no longer have any chance of building a new life for their families there.